[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service >> Intercoast Investment Holdings Ltd v Advanced Techies Ltd [2005] DRS 02533 (14 June 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2005/02533.html Cite as: [2005] DRS 02533, [2005] DRS 2533

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

 


Intercoast Investment Holdings Ltd v Advanced Techies Ltd [2005] DRS 02533 (14 June 2005)

NOMINET UK DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE DRS 02533

Intercoast Investment Holdings Limited –v-advanced techies Limited

Decision of Independent Expert

1. Parties:

Complainant: Intercoast Investment Holdings Limited

Country: MU

Respondent: Advanced Techies Ltd

Country: GB

2. Domain Name:

erosentertainment.co.uk

3. Procedural Background:

The Complaint was lodged with Nominet in full on 14 April 2005. Nominet validated the Complaint and notified the Respondent of the Complaint on 19 April 2005 and informed the Respondent that it had to lodge a Response by 11 May 2005. No Response was filed. On 13 May 2005 the Complainant paid Nominet the appropriate fee for a decision of an Expert pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Policy ("the Policy").

Cerryg Jones, the undersigned, ("the Expert") confirmed to Nominet that he knew of no reason why he could not properly accept the invitation to act as expert in this case and further confirmed that he knew of no matters which ought to be drawn to the attention of the parties, which might appear to call into question his independence and/or impartiality.

4. The Background:

The Complainant is Intercoast Investment Holdings Limited. It alleges that it owns an US registered trade mark with a registration date of 7 September 2004 for the word mark EROS ENTERTAINMENT for sound, video and data recording featuring cinematographic films featuring comedy, drama and suspense of South Asian origin, and the production of films and sound and video recordings in Hindi and English. It appears that the mark was filed in the US on 18 September 2001.

The Respondent filed the disputed domain name on 29 September 2003. The domain name resolves to a website at www.bollywooddvds.com, which is a website that offers a variety of Bollywood themed dvds.

5. Discussion and Findings:

Paragraph 2 of the Policy requires that for the Complainant to succeed it has to prove to the Expert on a balance of probabilities, that it has rights in respect of a name or mark identical or similar to the domain name and that the domain name in the hands of the Respondent is an abusive registration (as defined in paragraph 1 of the Policy).

The Complainant asserts that the domain name is identical or similar to a name in which it has rights and goes on to cite the US registration. No evidence of the registration is attached to the Complaint, though the relevant search page appears to have been cut and pasted into the main body of the Complaint. This is poor practice. A Complainant that bases its complaint on registered trade mark rights ought to adduce evidence of that right by means of a copy of the relevant certificate or, in the case of trade mark that is registered in the UK or Community, whilst least a copy of the relevant extract from the Patent Office database. However, whilst I am prepared to accept that the domain name is similar to a mark or name in which the Complainant has rights, which the Complaint has not succeeded in showing that the domain name is an abusive registration. Paragraph 1 of the Policy defines this as a domain name which either:

i. was registered or otherwise acquired in a manner, which at the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights; OR

ii. has been used in a manner, which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights."

The Policy requires a Complainant to prove to the expert that the disputed domain name is an abusive registration on a balance of probabilities. The Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors which may be indicative of an abusive registration. Here the Complainant has not offered a single reason why the domain name is an abusive registration. Further, no evidence has been filed by the Complainant from which such an inference could be reasonably drawn. All the Complainant has done in its Complaint is to cite a US registration and to provide the standard confirmation that the domain name in the hands of the Respondent is an abusive registration. This is miles away from proving on a balance of probabilities that the domain name is an abusive registration. The complaint must therefore fail. Accordingly, I find that the domain name is not an abusive registration and should not be transferred to the Complainant.

Cerryg Jones 14 June 2005

Expert Date