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 >> Obriss Ltd v Bersteiner [2007] DRS 4461 (27 March 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2007/4461.html Cite as: [2007] DRS 4461 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service
DRS Number 4461
Obriss Ltd
v
Mr Stefan Bersteiner
Decision of Independent Expert
Complainant: Obriss Ltd
Country: GB
Respondent: Mr Stefan Bersteiner
Country: Austria
homoactive.co.uk - registered on 25 March 2006. .
The Complaint was lodged with Nominet on 12 December 2006. Nominet validated the Complaint and notified the Respondent of the relevant Complaint on 14 December 2006 and informed the Respondent that it had 15 days within which to lodge a Response.
No response was received from the Respondent.
No mediation having been possible, on 21 March 2007 the dispute was referred for a decision by an Independent Expert following payment by the Complainant of the required fee for a decision of an Expert pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Policy ("the Policy").
David Flint, 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.
None
The Complainant
As Obriss is the holder of the trademark HOMOACTIVE and homoactive.co.uk was owned by us but before we could renew it it was snatched by this guy. We contacted the new registered owner (we used to own it but missed the renewal date) and he gave nominet the details above as his details - however we have written to him there to find that these are not accurate.
The Respondent
No response was received
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.
Please transfer this back into our name as soon as possible. Please also let me know if there is anything else we need to do to complete this process. Thank you.
Respondent
No response
General
To succeed in this Complaint the Complainant has to prove to the Expert pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Policy on the balance of probabilities, first, that it has rights (as defined in paragraph 1 of the Policy) in respect of a name or mark identical or similar to the Domain Name and, secondly, that the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration (as defined in paragraph 1 of the Policy).
Complainant's Rights
Other than a bald unsupported statement, no evidence has been produced by the Complainant that he has any rights whatsoever in the name "homoactive". Accordingly the Expert finds the first limb of the test unsatisfied.
Abusive Registration
As the Complainant has failed to show that it has any rights in the name, the question of abusive registration thereof by the Respondent need not be addressed
In light of the foregoing findings, namely that the Complainant has failed to show that it has rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical to the Domain Name, the Expert rejects the Complaint.
David Flint
27 March 2007
