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 >> Schering Plough Corp & Ors v BD Healthcare Ltd [2009] DRS 6671 (03 March 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2009/6671.html Cite as: [2009] DRS 6671 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
|
||
DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE DRS 06671
Decision of Independent Expert (Summary Decision)
Schering- Plough Corporation: Schering Corporation; Schering Plough Ltd and their
affiliates and subsidiaries
And
B.D Healthcare Ltd.
|
||
|
||
1. The Parties:
Complainant: Schering- Plough Corporation: Schering Corporation;
Schering Plough Ltd and their affiliates and subsidiaries
Country: USA
Respondent: BD Healthcare Limited
Country: Great Britain
|
||
|
||
2. The Domain Name:
neoclarityn.co.uk
|
||
|
||
1
|
||
|
||
|
||
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.
x Yes D No
4. Rights
The complainant has, to my reasonable satisfaction, shown Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain name.
XYes D No
5. Abusive Registration
The complainant has, to my reasonable satisfaction, shown that the Domain name neoclarityn.co.uk is an Abusive Registration
X Yes D No
6. Other Factors
I am satisfied that no other factors apply which would make a summary decision unconscionable in all the circumstances
X Yes □ No
7. Comments (optional)
|
||
|
||
In reaching this Summary Decision I have taken into account the Respondent’s email of 28th January 2008 and its subsequent “response” documents dated 6th and 9th February 2009. I have also taken into account the subsequent “reply” to these documents filed on behalf of the Complainant.
|
||
|
||
8. Decision
The Expert finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the Complainant has Rights in the name or mark which is identical to the Domain Name.
The Expert finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration in the hands of the Respondent.
The Expert therefore directs that the Domain Name be transferred to the complainant.
Signed: Nick Phillips Dated: 3 March 2009
|
||
|
||
2
|
||
|
||