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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service >> HM Land Registry v GOV-Network [2005] DRS 2916 (18 October 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2005/2916.html Cite as: [2005] DRS 2916 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service
DRS Number 2916
HM Land Registry -v- GOV-Network
Decision of Independent Expert
Complainant: HM Land Registry
Country: GB
Respondent: GOV-Network
Country: GB
gov-landreg.co.uk ("the Domain Name")
| 26 August 2005: | Complaint lodged with Nominet electronically |
| 26 August 2005: | Hardcopy complaint received by Nominet |
| 18 May 2005: | Nominet forwarded complaint to Respondent |
| 21 September 2005: | Out of time response received by Nominet |
On 18 October 2005 I, Adam Taylor, the undersigned, confirmed to Nominet that I knew of no reason why I could not properly accept the invitation to act as expert in this case and further confirmed that I knew of no matters that ought to be drawn to the attention of the parties which might appear to call into question my independence and/or impartiality.
The response was filed one day out of time.
The following parts of the DRS Procedure are relevant:
Paragraph 12a: "We, or the Expert if appointed, may in exceptional cases extend any period of time in proceedings under the Dispute Resolution Service."
Paragraph 13b: "Any communication with us intended to be passed to the Expert which is not part of the standard process (e.g. other than a complaint, response, reply, submissions requested by the Expert, appeal notice or appeal notice response) is a 'non-standard submission'. Any non-standard submission must contain as a separate, first paragraph, a brief explanation of why there is an exceptional need for the non-standard submission. We will pass this explanation to the Expert, and the remainder will only be passed to the Expert at his or her sole discretion. If there is no explanation, we may not pass on the document or information."
Paragraph 15b: "If, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a Party does not comply with any time period laid down in the Policy or this Procedure, the Expert will proceed to a Decision on the complaint."
Nominet advised the Respondent that it could not accept the late response but that it was open to the Respondent to make a non-standard submission in accordance with paragraph 13b of the DRS Procedure. Nominet has not sent me the late response or any further submission and I infer that no explanation of exceptional need was forthcoming from the Respondent. I therefore have no evidence of exceptional circumstances which might enable me to extend the period for the response or to admit the Respondent's document as a non-standard submission.
The Complainant, established in 1862, is a government department, an executive agency and a trading fund. Its principal objective is to maintain and develop a stable and effective land registration system throughout England and Wales so as to enable the creation and free movement of interests in land. On behalf of the Crown, it guarantees title to the registered estates and interests in land. It also provides access to up to date and guaranteed land information to enable confident dealings in property. There are about 20 million registered titles to land in England and Wales. The Complainant has sole statutory responsibility for the registration and custodianship of title to and interest in land.
Since late 1997 the Complainant has operated a website at. This website attracts around 7,000 visitors daily. The primary purpose of these visits is to obtain information about the Complainant and to obtain application forms for use in obtaining official data or in respect of published property price reports.
The Complainant operates a service called Land Register Online "(LRO") linked to from its main site whereby the public can make property enquiries to find out ownership and other information using an address or title number. A copy of any register can be bought and downloaded for £2 or any title plan at £2 or copies of both for £4 per property.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name on 22 September 2004.
Complainant
The Complainant successfully obtained the transfer ofin DRS 00652.
The Complainant has rights in the name Land Registry which is identical or similar to the Domain Name.
No statement on the site at the Domain Name distinguishes it from the Complainant nor is there any or sufficient means of redressing the Complainant's rights.
Use of the Domain Name and the use of corporate colours and the words "UK Land Registry" on the Respondent's website is an abusive registration because it is being used in a way which confuses people. The Complainant has been contacted many times, both by e-mail and telephone by people complaining about the website who were confused because they clearly thought they were on the Complainant's website.
The Respondent's website was first brought to the Complainant's attention on 4 August 2005 by two customers who rang the Complainant's LRO information line on to make a complaint that they had not received documents ordered through the service. Neither of the customers had received emails from WorldPay giving them the WorldPay transaction number. Both transactions had been debited to a credit card of an individual with an address in St Dolay, France and an email address of [email protected]. The customers had been charged £15 and £25 respectively. Both customers had used the Google search engine.
Since then the Complainant has received numerous calls and emails in complaint when documents ordered have not arrived and when emails using the 'support' email from the Respondent site were been returned as undeliverable. All the complaining customers thought that the Respondent's website was the official Complainant site.
The Respondent's site is being brought up as a priority site through search engines when a search is made for "land registry" or "land reg". The site gives the impression that it is a government site.
The Respondent uses LRO to purchase the documents which it then sells on with no mention that it is not direct from the Complainant.
The Respondent's site shows an example of a specimen mock register and title plan which are direct copies from the Complainant's LRO service in breach of Crown copyright. Some information in the site's Frequently Asked Questions appears to have been copied directly from the Complainant's own LRO site. There is a link called 'Boundary Disputes' on the Respondent's site which says it produces the title plans of each property involved. A customer thinking this was a Complainant site may regard this as giving official information. The Complainant does not know what qualification the Respondent has to handle any such enquiries. The site says that a register will cost £15 and a title plan £15 but there is a combined charge of £25 for both.
Respondent
There is no response.
General
To succeed, the Complainant has to prove in accordance with paragraph 2 of the DRS Policy on the balance of probabilities, first, that it has rights (as defined in paragraph 1 of the DRS Policy) in respect of a name or mark identical or similar to the Domain Name and, second, that the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an abusive registration (as defined in paragraph 1 of the DRS Policy).
Complainant's Rights
The Complainant is known as "HM Land Registry" or more colloquially as "The Land Registry" in England and Wales and it was held in DRS 00652 () to have unregistered rights in those names. It was pointed out in that case that if an organisation were to call itself "The Land Registry" and offer services similar to those of the Complainant, the Complainant would be able to restrain use of the name by means of passing off proceedings. I agree and conclude that the Complainant has unregistered rights in the name THE LAND REGISTRY deriving from the long and extensive use of that name in England and Wales.
The name THE LAND REGISTRY is similar to the Domain Name. The phrase "landreg" in the Domain Name is an obvious abbreviation of the term LAND REGISTRY and indeed this is the abbreviation used by the Complainant for its main site. The term "gov" in the Domain Name does nothing to distinguish the rest of the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark; on the contrary it enhances the connection because "gov" is both an abbreviation of "government" and the prominent part of the ".gov.uk" domain suffix reserved for government bodies. It is irrelevant that that "gov" is not being used here as a domain suffix. Its incorporation in the main part of the Domain Name nonetheless carries a strong implication that its proprietor is a government body.
The Complainant has established common law rights in respect of a name or mark similar to the Domain Name.
Abusive Registration
Is the Domain Name an abusive registration in the hands of the Respondent? Paragraph 1 of the Policy defines "abusive registration" 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 Complainant in effect relies on paragraph 3aii of the DRS Policy which is one of the non-exhaustive factors which may be evidence that the Domain is an abusive registration:
" ii. Circumstances indicating that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in a way which has confused people or businesses into believing that the Domain Name is registered to, operated or authorised by, or otherwise connected with the Complainant"
This factor relies requires use of the Domain Name in way which "has confused" people into believing there is a connection with the Complainant ie actual confusion. The Complainant asserts that it has received numerous calls and emails from customers who confused the Respondent's site with the Complainant's site. It is therefore surprising that the Complainant has not exhibited a single one of those emails in support of its complaint. The Complainant could have blanked out personal details if that was a concern. The Complainant does quote from one email but that is insufficient. For example I have no way of checking that the reproduction is accurate or knowing whether it is complete or merely an extract.
The complaint help form on Nominet's website says that one of the main reasons why DRS complaints fail is that complainants do not provide any evidence to back up what they say. "It is vital that you refer to evidence in your complaint and then providing it in indexed exhibits or schedules to your complaint... Doing this will massively increase your chances of success."
Here the Complainant has not provided any supporting evidence of actual confusion and I decline to make any finding on this point.
That is not the end of the matter as the paragraph 3aii factors are non-exhaustive. The Domain Name could still be an abusive registration if, notwithstanding the lack of evidence of actual confusion, there were evidence that the Respondent set out to create a likelihood of confusion. Is there such evidence?
The Complainant says that the Respondent uses LRO to purchase documents which it then sells on at a profit with no mention that they are not direct from the Complainant. But again this assertion is not backed up by evidence. The Complainant might for example have arranged for a test purchase and then exhibited the paperwork, thereby showing exactly what the Respondent was doing or saying in the course of a transaction. But it has not done so and the precise details of the Respondent's scheme remain sketchy.
The Complainant also says that the Respondent's site gives the impression that it is a government site.
The Complainant invokes the use of corporate colours and the words "UK Land Registry" on the site but it has not exhibited a colour, or indeed any, printout of the home page. The Respondent's site was no longer accessible when I attempted to visit it. In accordance with its usual practice, Nominet has included a (black and white) screenshot of the home page of the Respondent's site in the file sent to me. That screenshot - dated 26 August 2005 - does not demonstrate use of the words "UK Land Registry" on the home page.
It is, however, telling that the Respondent chose to register and use a Domain Name which is a reworking of the domain name for the Complainant's main site (Complainant:, Respondent: ) and that the Domain Name was registered in the name of "GOV-Network". All of this appears to be designed to give the impression of an official government site and a connection with the Complainant.
Furthermore the Nominet screenshot does show that the home page was prominently branded with the Domain Name and this fact of itself is likely to cause confusion with the Complainant's site. The text on the home page compounds such likelihood of confusion; at the very least it does nothing to dispel it. For example: "Search over 20 million records online using our online Property Enquiry Search Engine. Then download title register (details of each property) and title plan (a plan of the property) in a PDF format."
The Complainant makes some assertions about the Respondent having copied parts of its site. I make no finding in connection with the alleged copying of some of the Complainant's FAQs as these have not been exhibited. However, the one piece of evidence which the Complainant has produced is significant. This is a printout of a specimen register and title plan from the Respondent's website which is identical to, and has clearly been copied from, the Complainant's LRO website.
Taking the above findings together, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the purpose of the Respondent in registering and/or using the Domain Name was to create and capitalise upon a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its site and that the Domain Name has therefore been acquired and/or used in a manner that took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's rights.
The domain name gov-landreg.co.uk should be transferred to the Complainant.
_________________
Adam Taylor
