Login | Join Us | Contact Us | Search
 
 
 

 
 
  About Us   Press         Conferences   Members   Teams       Publications   Class 46     Position Papers   FAQs        Links     

Class 46 - for your European trade mark news
 

Now in its sixth year, Class 46  is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice.  This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
 
  THURSDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2010
UDRP not suitable to obtain domain name originally registered with your consent

An interesting decision was recently decided by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center under the UDRP concerning the domain name redbullnorge.com. Red Bull GmbH of Fuschl am See, Austria, proprietor of the famous Red Bull trade marks for energy drinks, had back in 2006 allowed Roy Kenneth Nabben to register and use the domain name redbullnorge.com for sale of the Red Bull energy drink in Norway until Red Bull GmbH received authorization from the Norwegian authorities to sell the product legally in Norway, which it did in April 2009. Red Bull GmbH then required transfer of the domain name under the UDRP and failed to obtain it. The panelist held that:

For the reasons set out in detail in the recent majority decision in A. Nattermann & Cie. GmbH and Sanofi-aventis v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2010-0800, the Panel considers that, to satisfy the third requirement of the UDRP, a complainant must show that the domain name was both registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith, and that a registration originally made in good faith cannot turn into a registration in bad faith because the registrant subsequently uses it in bad faith. Bad faith use can be evidence of bad faith registration but cannot convert a registration which was in fact made in good faith into a registration made in bad faith.

It has also been the consensus view of panelists that a renewal of a domain name without a change of ownership does not constitute a new registration for the purpose of this requirement (references omitted).

In this case it is common ground that the Domain Name was originally registered by the Respondent with the consent of the Complainant to enable the Respondent to market the Complainant’s Red Bull product to consumers in Norway for the mutual benefit of both parties. There is no evidence that the registration was originally made by the Respondent in bad faith. The Respondent has remained the registrant of the Domain Name since then, albeit that he renewed the Domain Name after the Complainant demanded that he cease using it.

In these circumstances, the Panel cannot find that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith. The third requirement of the UDRP is not satisfied and the Complaint must be rejected.

Case No. D2010-1358 of 30 September 2010.

Posted by: Mark Schweizer @ 10.41 
Tags: UDRP, WIPO, domain name,

 

   0 comments:    Post a comment

 
 

Search Class 46
Search:

Who we all are...

Birgit Clark
Edith Van den Eede
Fidel Porcuna
Frédéric Glaize
Gino Van Roeyen
Jeremy Phillips
Kathrin Vowinckel
Laetitia Lagarde
Mark Schweizer
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Pedro Malaquias
Robert Börner
Tomasz Rychlicki

Receive Class 46 by email
3308 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog by email circular. Why don't you?

To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button.
email:

Receive Class 46 by RSS Feed
519 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


+ 2013
+ 2012
+ 2011
- 2010
     + December (50)
     - November (47)
Italian Food Police cracks down on foreign GI counterfeits.
ONEL almost up to the ECJ?
German Federal Patent Court: Lack of signature II ("Unterschriftsmangel II")
Latest ETMR and WTR now out
Smoked prunes, non-bagels and piggies fed on whey among the latest GI terms protected
Kill your hairdresser... NOT
Switzerland: Harry Popper's magic wand no more
Adoption of a draft EU-Switzerland bilateral agreement for the protection of their respective GIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
Reminder: the subtle art of comparison, your chance to vote
Gotha.. no GOTCHA!
Poland: the PPO's Annual Report 2009 - English Version
DPMA: Annual Report 2009 - English Version
Administration and Budgets: there's more to Alicante than just the beach!
Italy : Trademark battle prevails over political debate?
GO OGLE domain name action: retrial ordered
Bottle shock: Artesa Napa Valley v. Arteso
Poland: genuine use and formal protection
Nice bottle, but no protection
The CJEU offers more guidance on comparative advertising
The Spanish Patents and Trade Marks Office goes "YouTube".
Polish apple, French olive get GI status
Court considers "logistical hub" for fakes in Nokia hearing
UDRP not suitable to obtain domain name originally registered with your consent
Copyright in trade marks: are there problems?
ECJ to rule on criteria for registration of position marks
ONEL - Pieter Veeze's 2010 Markenforum Speech
Don't miss the Parallel Trade Seminar
Poland: the battle over OXFORD
Deutsche Bahn: combination of grey and red colours remain free to use by competitors in railway sector
More protected names for EU foodstuffs
Madonna: no mercy from the highest court (of Switzerland)
Topshop trouble in Norway
Vastedda della valle del Belěce secures PDO protection
Good news for Greenland, but not the Faroes
GRAIN MILLERS go for ruling on "more than local significance" use
Bulgaria seeks GI protection for Rakia
Surfing and the Greek Communcation Review Board
Poland: WYBOROWA and WYBORNA
National laws on on Community Trade Marks and Designs of the 27 EU countries available in 5 languages
Google : associations denounce the new AdWords policy in Europe
France: fraudulent trade mark filing
Poland: GUCCI v. GUCIO
OHIM: Updates to the Manual of Trade Mark Practice
The Spanish CTM Tribunal on how to prove reputation: "Your pile of advertisement inserts and press releases does not look that impressive".
Swiss trade mark practice against PRO
Nijntje gives Kathy the go-by
Poland: the battle over KARDIOMED
     + October (40)
     + September (46)
     + August (30)
     + July (55)
     + June (40)
     + May (33)
     + April (42)
     + March (62)
     + February (44)
     + January (36)
+ 2009
+ 2008
+ 2007

 
 

Terms of Use: The material included on this site is provided for information purposes only, and we make no representations or warranties as to its accuracy. It does not represent legal advice. Before relying on this material, you should take care to verify its accuracy, taking professional advice as appropriate. [Please click here for the full Terms and Conditions of Use]

Copyright ©2008-2013 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors