Armani Jeans Ltd -v- Little [2003] DRS 871 (15 April 2003)

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 £1, 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!

1.2 Respondent:
Mark Little
2. DOMAIN NAME

Armanijeans.co.uk (the "Domain Name”)

The complaint was lodged with Nominet on 19th February 2003. Nominet validated the complaint and notified the Respondent of the complaint on 20th February 2003, and informed the Respondent that he had 15 working days' within which to lodge a Response. The Respondent failed to respond. Mediation not being possible in those circumstances, Nominet so informed the Complainant and on 19h March 2003, the Complainant paid Nominet the appropriate fee for a decision of an Expert pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Policy (“the Policy”).

Nick Lockett, the undersigned, (“the Expert”) has confirmed to Nominet that he knows of no reason why he cannot not properly accept the invitation to act as expert in this case. He further confirms 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.
3.1 FORMAL/PROCEDURAL ISSUES
The Respondent has not submitted a Response to Nominet in time (or at all) in compliance with paragraph 5a of the Procedure for the conduct of proceedings under the Dispute Resolution Service (“the DRS Procedure”).

Paragraph 15b of the DRS Procedure provides, inter alia, that “If in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a Party does not comply with any time period laid down in this Policy or the Procedure, the Expert will proceed to a Decision on the complaint.” There is no evidence before the Expert to indicate the presence of exceptional circumstances; accordingly, the Expert will now proceed to a Decision on the Complaint, notwithstanding the absence of a Response.

Paragraph 15c of the DRS Procedure provides that “If, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a Party does not comply with any provision in the Policy or this Procedure …, the Expert will draw such inferences from the Party’s non-compliance as he or she considers appropriate.” The Expert is not aware of any exceptional circumstances in this case and so will draw inferences as appropriate.

4.1 THE COMPLAINANT
The Complainant is GA Modefine SA, represented by Murgitroyd & Company of Glasgow. The Complainant is a Swiss company.
4.2 Complainant Rights
The Complainant is the owner of goodwill and reputation and trade mark rights in the name ARMANI and ARMANI JEANS
4.3 It is part of the world famous Armani Group created by the designer Georgio Armani and the name Armani and Armani Jeans are well-known marks in the United Kingdom. The Armani Jeans have been produced since 1981.
4.4 Registered Rights
The Complainant has registered a portfolio of trade marks related to ARMANI AND ARMANI JEANS full details of which were annexed to the complaint. These included:
a) “ARMANI” Number 1287747of 29.01.90; and
b) “ARMANI JEANS” Number 17915185 of 02.07.01.
c) CTM “ARMANI JEANS” Number 1 705 185 of 9-06-00
4.5 The Claimant states that in addition to registered rights, the name Armani Jeans is recognised and respected by the general public of the United Kingdom as being one of the market leaders in the field of jeans
4.6 THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is Mr Mark Little.
4.7 No search for other Domain Names also held by the Respondent has been made. The Respondent has not responded to the complaint and is not represented.
4.8 THE DOMAIN NAME
The Domain Name was registered on 5th May 1999. There is no evidence that the domain name has been used by the Respondent for web-sites or e-mail.

5.1 Complainant:
The Complainant confirms that the Domain Name in dispute is identical or similar to a name or mark in which the Complainant has Rights and asserts that in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration.
5.2 The complaint alleges for the following reasons:
(a) Trade Mark Infringement
(b) unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights
(c) The registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent prevents the legitimate owner of rights in the trade mark from registering and using the Domain Name and is therefore a blocking registration within the meaning of paragraph 3(a)(i)(B) of the Policy.
5.3
5.4 Respondent:
The Respondent has not made any response to the Complaint. The Respondent has made no active use of the Domain Name and there has never been, to the Complainant’s knowledge, any web site operating from the Domain Name address.

6.1 General
The Respondent has not made any response. Accordingly, the Expert is entitled to draw inferences as appropriate from the Respondent's failure to respond (DRS Procedure 15(c)).
6.2 Complainant's Rights
The Expert accepts that the Complainant has common law rights in the name Armani Jeans which are capable of protection as well as Trade Mark rights. The Expert also accepts that the Domain Name(s) in dispute is identical or similar to a name or mark in which the Complainant has Registered Rights. These rights are extensive and well-known within the United Kingdom. The deletion of a space between the words “Armani” and “Jeans” in the domain name does not fundamentally alter the identical or similar nature and is of no effect.
6.3 The Respondent’s rights.
The Respondent has given no reason why he registered the Domain Name, nor what his use or intended use of the Domain Name is. No Respondent rights are claimed nor has the Respondent demonstrated any rights in the Domain Name or in the trade mark ARMANI JEANS or similar name.
6.4 Blocking Registration
The Expert takes the view that the registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent in these particular circumstances prevents the legitimate owner of rights in the name from registering and using the Domain Name. The Respondent has failed to provide any explanation or reason for registration.
6.5 Accordingly, the Expert determines that in these circumstances and in the absence of any explanation about the use of the domain, the registration is a blocking registration within the meaning of paragraph 3(a)(i)(B) of the Policy. [ The Expert does not need to decide whether there would still be a blocking registration or infringement if the Respondent was using the site for sale of genuine Armani Jeans. ]
6.6 Instrument of Fraud
Although not argued, there is also a question whether the domain name is an instrument of fraud. In the opinion of the Expert, this issue is within the inherent jurisdiction and does not need to be expressly pleaded. The Expert considers that in the absence of explanation about use or intended use and in the absence of any submission of legitimate purpose for the registration and use of the domain name by the Respondent, then the domain name in the hands of the Respondent constitutes an instrument of fraud within the meaning of BT et al v One in a Million 1998.

7. DECISION

The Expert finds:
a) that the Complainant has extensive Rights in respect of a name and mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name in question; and
b) that the Respondent has not demonstrated any competing rights; and.
c) In the opinion of the Expert, the absence of a web-site would tend to indicate that it is not owned by a group as substantial as the Complainant group. There is no evidence of e-mail usage. The Expert does not consider that there is sufficient evidence to establish the substantial likelihood of the general public assuming that the Domain Name is associated with the group; and
d) that the registration of the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration, being both a blocking registration and, within the meaning of BT v One-in-a-Million 1998, an instrument of fraud; and
e) The Expert has therefore not had to consider the question of whether the domain name took unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights
Accordingly the Expert finds in favour of the Complainant.
The Expert recommends a transfer of the domain to the Complainant.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service >> Armani Jeans Ltd -v- Little [2003] DRS 871 (15 April 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2003/871.html Cite as: [2003] DRS 871