[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service >> Trinity Mirror PLC & Anor v Cytech Ltd [2008] DRS 6040 (30 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2008/6040.html Cite as: [2008] DRS 6040

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

 
DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE DRS 06040 Decision of Independent Expert (Summary Decision) (1) Trinity Mirror PLC (2) MGN Ltd and Cytech Limited
1. The Parties:

Complainants: (1) Trinity Mirror Plc

(2) MGN Ltd

London

Respondent: Cytech Limited

Belize

2. The Domain Names:

peoplebingo.co.uk and peoplepoker.co.uk

3. Notification of Complaint

I hereby certify that I am satisfied that Nominet has sent the Complaint to the Respondent in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Procedure:

Yes

4. Rights

The Complainants have, to my reasonable satisfaction, shown Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Names:

<peoplebingo.co.uk> Yes

<peoplepoker.co.uk> No

5. Abusive Registration

The Complainants have, to my reasonable satisfaction, shown that the Domain name below is an Abusive Registration:

<peoplebingo.co.uk> Yes

<peoplepoker.co.uk> N/A

6. Other Factors

I am satisfied that no other factors apply which would make a summary decision unconscionable in all the circumstances

No

7. Decision

The Domain Name be transferred to the Complainants.

No action in respect of the Domain Name .

8. Any Comments

I find that the Complainants have registered trade mark rights in the sign PEOPLE for goods in Class 16, i.e. printed matter. So far as unregistered rights are concerned, since the sign PEOPLE is generic in nature, the Complainants must establish that the mark has gained distinctiveness for any categories of goods or services in respect of which they wish to assert such rights.

I do not accept on the evidence that the sign PEOPLE, on its own, has become distinctive of either bingo or poker services offered by the Complainants such that they have gained unregistered trade mark rights in that sign for either of those services.

The Complainants claim unregistered trade mark rights in the sign PEOPLE BINGO. Although both elements of the sign are generic, I accept on the evidence that the Complainants have made sufficient use of the sign for bingo services as to have rendered the sign distinctive of those services. I therefore find that the Complainants have unregistered trade mark rights in the sign PEOPLE BINGO for bingo services and that the mark is identical to the Domain Name (ignoring the space and formal suffix).

The Complainants also claim unregistered trade mark rights in the sign PEOPLE POKER. However, the Complainants have never used that sign. While I find that the Complainants arguably have unregistered trade mark rights arising from their use of the name "peoplecasino", I do not accept that that mark (again comprising two generic elements) is identical or similar to the Domain Name . Nor do I accept the Complainants' contention that their mark PEOPLE is effectively identical to that Domain Name because the element POKER is merely descriptive of a service provided under that name: the Complainants do not have automatic rights in all signs comprising PEOPLE with a descriptive addition.

I do not find, therefore, that the Complainants have rights in a mark that is identical or similar to the Domain Name for the purposes of paragraph 2(a)(i) of the Policy.

Signed: Steven A. Maier Dated: 30 September 2008