BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service >> Go Web Producao de Paginas Internet LDA v Global Publications Ltd [2009] DRS 6473 (8 January 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2009/6473.html
Cite as: [2009] DRS 6473

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


    DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE
    DRS 06473

    Decision of Independent Expert

    Go Web Produção de Paginas Internet Lda
    and
    Global Publications Limited

  1. The Parties:
  2. Complainant: Go Web – Produção de Paginas Internet Lda

    Country: PT

    Respondent: Global Publications Limited

    Country: GB

  3. The Domain Name:
  4. goweb.co.uk

  5. Notification of Complaint
  6. I hereby certify that I am satisfied that Nominet has sent the complaint to the respondent in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Procedure. X Yes ... No
  7. Rights
  8. The complainant has, to my reasonable satisfaction, shown Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the domain name.
    X Yes ... No
  9. Abusive Registration
  10. The complainant has, to my reasonable satisfaction, shown that the domain name goweb.co.uk is an Abusive Registration
    ... Yes x No

  11. Other Factors
  12. No other factors apply which would make a summary decision unconscionable in all the circumstances.
    X Yes ... No
  13. Decision
  14. The complainant's request for transfer of the domain name goweb.co.uk is refused.

  15. Any Comments (optional)
  16. See attached sheet.

    Signed : Anna Carboni Dated : 8 January 2009


     

    Summary of reasons for refusal

  17. The complainant owns a UK trade mark registration for the word GOWEB. However, this was only applied for on 23 May 2008 (granted on 17 October 2008), whereas the contested domain name was registered over 4 years previously, on 3 April 2004.
  18. Although it appears from one of the exhibits and from examining the complainant's website at www.goweb.pt that the complainant has conducted some internet related activities under the name GOWEB since around 2000, there is little evidence of the nature, extent or scope of such activities. It is also not clear when the expansion from Portugal to the UK took place. And there is no evidence of the complainant's reputation in either jurisdiction (or elsewhere).
  19. The complainant itself states that the respondent has not recorded the domain name in an improper manner. But it nevertheless seeks to infer from its own activities under, and interest in, the GOWEB name that "Objectively, the domain is being held hostage, either for sale or to get some recognition on another company's name".
  20. The real problem for the complainant is that there are numerous different entities that use the name GOWEB as a trading name and/or in their domain names and web addresses, including the following: goweb.biz, goweb.com.au, goweb.co.za, goweb.cz, goweb.gr, goweb.ie and goweb.de. On the website linked to the last of these (www.goweb.de), the ® symbol appears alongside the name GOWEB, indicating that it is a registered trade mark of someone involved in that website, which does not appear to be linked to the complainant.
  21. The term "Go Web" is used by many different entities in many different ways on the internet, sometimes as if it is a trade mark or trade name to indicate the origin of the services being offered, and sometimes in a descriptive way. In these circumstances, it would be necessary to have some real evidence that the respondent was somehow targeting the complainant or its business or customers, or that its registration or use of the domain name was causing confusion, for me to get close to concluding that it is an abusive registration.
  22. In all the circumstances, I am unable to draw the inference for which the complainant argues, and I must refuse its request for a transfer of the domain name.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2009/6473.html