![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service >> Comtec Enterprises Ltd v Corden (t/a Comtec) [2005] DRS 02204 (24 February 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2005/02204.html Cite as: [2005] DRS 2204, [2005] DRS 02204 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Complainant: Comtec Enterprises Ltd
Country: GB
Respondent: Mr Mark Corden trading as Comtec (or Comtec Computers)
Country: GB
comtec.co.uk ("the Domain Name")
24/11/2004 Dispute entered into system
25/11/2004 Complaint hardcopies received
30/11/2004 Complaint validated
30/11/2004 Complaint documents generated and sent to Respondent
22/12/2004 Electronic Response entered into system
22/12/2004 Electronic Response matched
22/12/2004 Response hardcopies received
22/12/2004 Forward response to complainant documents generated
05/01/2005 Reply entered into system
05/01/2005 Electronic Reply matched
05/01/2005 Electronic Reply entered into system.
05/01/2005 Reply hardcopies received
05/01/2005 Initiate mediation documents generated
24/01/2005 Mediation documents generated
07/02/2005 Fees received for Expert from complainant on 07/02/2005
08/02/2005 Mr. Iain M Tolmie selected as expert
"I am independent of each of the parties. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there are no facts or circumstances, past or present, or that could arise in the foreseeable future, that need be disclosed as they might be of a such a nature as to call in to question my independence in the eyes of one or both of the parties."
comtechsolutions.com; comtec.ca; comtec-computer.de; comtecorlando.com; comtec.teleca.sa; comtecok.com; comtec.co.de; comtec.pl; comtec-consulting.it; comtec-europe.co.uk; comtec.co.il; comtec.co.kr; comtec-it.com; comtec.co.za; comtec.cl.
Computer Technology, Communications Technology, Combat Technology, Comfort Technology (heating boilers)
Complainant
I confirm that Domain Name(s) in dispute are identical or similar to a name or mark in which I have Rights.
I confirm that Domain Name(s) in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration.
1. The Complainant has been operating since 1994, and became a registered company on the 18th May 1999 (Exhibit A).
2. The Complainants registered office is at Unit 13, Mitcham Industrial Estate, Streatham Road, Mitcham, Surrey, CR4 2AP. A branch office is based in Reigate, Surrey. The Complainant also trades under the name 'Comtec' as an abbreviation for Comtec Enterprises Ltd.
{3 - 5 discuss the size and extent of the Complainants business and its ownership of the Domain Name comtec.com}
6. The Complainant therefore is concerned that the Respondent has acquired and registered the domain name 'comtec.co.uk' which may cause confusion between the two businesses and foreseeable damage to the Complainant. This is in contrast to 'comtec.net' owned by Comtec Distributing which is a heating company that cannot possibly be confused with the Complainant (Exhibit C).
7. The Respondent is trading as Comtec Computers (not to be confused with Comtec Computers Ltd of 96-98 Merritt Road, Greatstone, New Romney, Kent, TN28 8SZ (Exhibit D)). The Respondents registered address for the purpose of the domain name is P O Box 300, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK10 2GP (Exhibit E) but enquiries by the Complainants solicitor have established the trading address to be 26, Lansdowne Street, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK10 2QZ which is believed to be the Respondents home address (Exhibit D).
8. The Respondent is trading as a computer company, and acquired the domain name 'comtec.co.uk' on the 1st November 2004.
{9 and 10 discuss an alleged attempt to sell the name to the highest bidder}.
11. The Complainant therefore submits that he has a right to 'comtec.co.uk' as similar if not identical to the Complainant's registered name, trading name and current registered domain name 'comtec.com'.
12. The Complainant also submits that the issue of Abusive Registration must also be considered given the similarities between the Parties businesses. The Complainant contends that it is reasonably fair to say that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant ownership and use of 'comtec.com'. The Respondent has therefore secured 'comtec.co.uk' thus knowing likely detriment will be caused to the Complainants business, and this is unfair advantage.
{13. Complains of nat making use of the domain and pointing the Domain Name to another domain name }.
{14. Complains of a "blocking registration}
{15. complains that the Respondent is a competitor in the computer industry, and suggests a trend of confusion and passing off.}
16. The Complainant alleges that the domain name 'comtec.co.uk' will likely confuse internet users who believe that they are contracting with the Complainant when in fact they are contracting with the Respondent and this is detrimental to the Complainant. The issue of 'passing off' must also be considered.
17. In summary the Complainant feels that the Respondents registration of the domain name is likely to cause their business foreseeable harm by creating confusion between the two businesses thereby also causing the Complainant unfair detriment and giving the Respondent an unfair advantage. The Respondent may cause unfair disruption to the Complainants business. Furthermore, the Complainant questions the Respondents original intention for acquiring the domain name when he reasonably would have been aware of the Complainants rights.
18. The Complainant therefore seeks that if his complaint is upheld for the domain name comtec.co.uk to be transferred to them.
Respondent
1. I received the complaint on 1st December 2004
2. I object to the Complaint and ask that the Expert does not grant the Complainant the remedy that he has asked for.
3. The registration in the hands of the Respondent is not abusive because:-
a. The name inherent in the domain name (Comtec) is one I have been known by my customers and by official bodies such as Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise for twenty years. The Respondent has been trading in the repair, maintenance and sales of Office and Computer equipment since 1982….more than ten years longer than the Complainant and has had its accounts audited by a chartered accountant for more than twenty years (Exhibit A). The Respondent has been trading under the names of Comtec, Comtec Computers and Comtec Computer Services Ltd since 1985 – see below
b. The Respondent has been registered for VAT with Customs and Excise under the trading name 'Comtec' since 1st July 1985 (Exhibit B).
c. The Respondent has been had its annual accounts prepared under the trading name 'Comtec' by a Chartered Accountant since 1986 (Exhibit C).
{d. – g. refer to 4 other documents dated in 1983, 1988 and 1998}
h. The Respondent has operated the telephone number 0707 4 COMTEC for more than ten years.
4. The Domain Name comtec.co.uk was purchased as it was publicly available to register. It is a single word generic name. The Respondent is making no attempt to 'pass off' or infringe on the rights of the Complainant in any way. The geographical distance of 186 miles between the two 'Comtec's' would make 'passing off' or trading under the other Comtec's name highly unlikely if not impossible in practical terms.
5. The name Comtec is generic (also commonly spelt as Comtech or Comtek) and is widely used within the Computer and Computer Services industry as a name meaning e.g. Computer Technology. A search at Companies House reveals more than twenty Comtec derived Limited Companies operating in the UK (Exhibit J) and there are many more 'un-registered' companies and sole traders using Comtec derived names. The name Comtec is also used in other industries e.g. Combat Technology (Exhibit K).
6. The Respondent offers IT solutions and services to most sectors of industry and education, specializing in small businesses and operates mainly in the North West of England and occasionally farther a field, including Ireland, Portugal, Germany, South Africa, Cyprus and France. The services include (but by no means are exhaustive) supply of custom built PC and Macintosh computers, supply of software solutions, maintenance and networking/network cabling.
7. The Respondent acquired the domain name comtec.co.uk on the 1st November 2004 and intends to develop a website to advertise the above services – this is under construction at the moment (Exhibit L) and will hopefully be finished in the first quarter of 2005.
8. The Respondent is using [email protected] as its primary email address – this is even being used by the Complainants solicitor in correspondence with the Respondent (Exhibit M)
9. The Complainant alleges that the domain name comtec.co.uk will likely confuse Internet users who believe that they are contacting the Complainant when in fact they are contacting the Respondent. There is no proof in that statement by the Complainant, in fact, if a search is made for 'Comtec' on the Internet using two of the most widely used directories namely Yell.com and Thompsonlocal.com, the Respondents 'Comtec is listed in both directories, whereas the Complainant is only listed in one (Exhibits N and O)
10. The Complaint is misleading because the Complainant makes hypothetical statements in his complaint without giving any evidence to support the statements, and they should be dismissed from the complaint:-
a. "the Complainant feels that the Respondents registration of the domain name is likely to cause their business foreseeable harm by creating confusion between the two businesses"
b. "The Respondent may cause unfair disruption to the Complainants business."
11. The Complainant states that a substantial number of persons are reliant upon the Complainant for their salary – the Respondent does not see the relevance of the statement in the context of the Respondent acquiring the domain name comtec.co.uk and notes that no evidence has been provided to show that the Complainants employee's salaries have been adversely affected.
12. The Complainant is using the DRS in bad faith and simply wishes to obtain a desirable domain name after the Respondent declined an offer to sell the domain name to him (Exhibit P). This is reinforced by the facts that :-
a. The Complainant claims that his business will suffer by the Respondents registration of the domain name comtec.co.uk….it being similar to his comtec.com, yet the Complainant has not made any attempt to register other similar .uk domain names such as comtec.uk.com, comtec.ltd.uk, comtec.uk.net and others which are still available to register today (Exhibits Q and R).
b. The Complainants registered name is Comtec Enterprises Ltd., yet the Complainant has not registered any of the relevant Comtec Enterprises domain names such as comtecenterprises.co.uk (or .com) to stop potential companies 'passing off' as 'his' Comtec or benefiting as he claims from his comtec.com domain name (Exhibit S).
{13.-14 the Respondent denies that he intentionally put comtec.co.uk on the market}
15. In summary the Respondent feels fully justified in registering the domain name comtec.co.uk having traded in Computer sales, Computer Services and maintenance under the name Comtec, Comtec Computers and Comtec Computer Services Ltd for more than twenty years – more than twice as long as the Complainant.
16. The Respondent therefore seeks that the Complaint be turned down and for the domain name comtec.co.uk to remain with the Respondent.
Complainant's Reply
1. We received the Respondent's Response (hard copy with attachments) to the Complainant's Complaint on the 24th December 2004. We Reply as follows;
{2. – 11 make detailed points disputing the Respondent's evidence of trading under the name of "comtec" and have been left out for brevity}
12. At this stage on having completed a brief summary of the Respondents attachments it is important to summarise the notable trend. First, it is clear that all of the attachments are dated prior to 1990 before Comtec Computer Services Ltd was dissolved, and therefore the Complainant challenges as to what businesses the documents relate. Second, the documents relate to various company titles, and the Respondent has failed to prove that the documents relate to his current trading status Third, the Respondent's address set on each document varies on at least five occasions, and upon comparison of the document dates there are inconsistencies. Finally, it is interesting to note that no recent accounts have been submitted by the Respondent to demonstrate its pre-acquisition domain name trading status.
13. The Respondent at paragraph 4 of the Response confirms that he purchased the domain name comtec.co.uk but is making no attempt to "Pass Off" or infringe the rights of the Complainant in any way. The Respondent relies upon the geographical distance between the Complainant and Respondent. The Complainant respectfully submits that the Respondent has misunderstood the legal standing of Passing Off where confusion can be created between two similar businesses or products. Furthermore, the internet domain has created a trading industry where markets are no longer defined by geographical location but instead by country (.for example .gov.uk etc). The Complainant operates throughout the United Kingdom.
14. The Respondent at paragraph 5 of the Response has endeavoured to rely upon the generic definition of 'comtec' but this is not the issue in this case. The issue is whether the Parties have a right to the domain name comtec.co.uk and secondly whether an abuse has occurred. The Complainant would submit they have a right to the domain name by their name, trading status and current ownership of comtec.com. The Complainant further submits it has proven that the Respondents ownership of comtec.co.uk is an abuse in that confusion is likely to occur in the market when a customer wishes to contract with the Complainant but mistakenly uses comtec.co.uk as opposed to comtec.com. The Parties are in identical industries. This is markedly different to the registered owner of comtec.net where confusion is unlikely to occur as the owner of comtec.net is in an unrelated industry; The Complainant is a registered limited company which has been trading under the comtec.com domain for some years prior to the Respondents recent acquisition of the comtec.co.uk and therefore was first to acquire the right.
15. We refer to paragraph 6 of the Response where the Respondent confirms his current business practices, and further business services are set out on the Respondents web page comtec.co.uk attached herewith as 'Exhibit B". The Respondent is clearly seeking to take unfair advantage of the confusion between the two Parties. It is noteable that the webpage at Exhibit B states that the Respondent is Comtec Computer's and the copyright refers to the same.
16. We refer to paragraph 8 of the Response which confirms the Respondent is using the e-mail address [email protected] which is markedly similar to the Complainants [email protected]. Foreseeable confusion can occur between the two;
17. We refer to paragraph 10 of he Response. We respectfully disagree with the Respondents allegation that the Complainant's complaint is misleading because there is a genuine concern that confusion is likely to arise between the owners of comtec.com and comtec.co.uk. The Complainant upon identifying the Respondents acquisition of comtec.co.uk on the 1st November 2004 contacted the Respondent without delay to resolve their legitimate concern. It was apparent from the Respondents webpages that he was selling domain names (as set out in the original complaint) and therefore the Complainant made a commercial decision to enquire whether a compromise may be agreed for the acquisition of the domain name without undue legal costs or damage to either Parties reputation;
{18};
{19. denies using the DRS in bad faith}
{20 expresses concern about the Respondents future intentions with the Domain Name}
21. In summary the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has failed to rebut the allegation set out within the original Complaint. In particular the Respondent has failed to consider the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution previous Decisions set out within R&G Advertising & Marketing Limited –v- Ray Gill Advertising (DRS 00446), Watermark Group Plc –v- Watermark Recruitment Bureau (DRS 00657), and Helvetia Swiss Insurance Company Ltd –v- Helvetia Group (DRS 01210).
22. The Complainant therefore invites Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service to find in its favour, and transfer to it the domain name comtec.co.uk.
Registering Domain Names in the ".uk" registry
The Dispute Resolution Service, Policy and procedure
Burden of Proof
i that he has Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name; and
ii that the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration as defined in Paragraph 1 of the Policy.
Rights includes, but is not limited to, rights enforceable under English law. However, a Complainant will be unable to rely on rights in a name or term which is wholly descriptive of the Complainant's business;
Complainants Rights
7.9.1. Where the Complainant's rights arose after the registration of the Domain Name in dispute;
7.9.2. Where the Domain Name is generic or a name or term which is wholly descriptive of the Complainant's business;
7.9.3. Where there is an acronym involved (see the Nominet guidance to Complainants on Rights in a Name or Mark - "5) If you are claiming rights in an acronym (e.g. Automaton Example Ltd claiming rights in AEL.co.uk) you should provide specific evidence of why that acronym is associated with you, and not merely a generic jumble of letters").
Abusive Registration
______________________ Date: 24th February 2005
Iain M. Tolmie ("the Expert")