Log in


Now in its twelfth 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.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
To decide or not to decide? That is the question

An interesting example of procedural ambivalence in the jurisprudence of WIPO’s panels regarding domain name disputes can be found in Case No. D2009-0405 (Google Inc. v. Herit Shah) regarding the domain name ‘googblog.com’. Google Inc. filed a complaint with WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center in order to have the disputed domain name transferred to it. Google, relied, inter alia, on its NASDAQ financial stock ticker since 2004 “GOOG” to strengthen its confusing similarity claim for goog(blog).(com). Initially, the respondent didn’t respond. However, after the panelist was appointed, the respondent sent the WIPO Arbitratio

n and Mediation Center apologizing and admitting the validity of the complaint.

So, the procedural issue was whether the panel should directly transfer the domain name to Google or decide the case on its merits. Apparently the jurisprudence is divided on this particular issue. As set out in the decision, in Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Elmer Morales, NAF Claim No. FA 475191 (June 24, 2005) and Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., NAF Claim No. FA 212653 (January 13, 2004) and Boehring

er Ingelheim International GmbH v. Modern Limited – Cayman Web Development, NAF Claim No. FA 133625 (January 9, 2003). the respective Panels decided to forego any legal analysis and accept the complaints since the respondent in each case had also accepted them.

However, in Graebel Van Lines, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates – NA NA, NAF Claim No. FA 1195954 (July 17, 2008), the Panel formally reviewed the case, even though the respondent has admitted the validity of the complaint. The same occurred in Barrow Industries Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates – NA NA, NAF Claim No. FA0812001239732.

In this particular case the Panel took the fast lane. It was noted that there was “… an unexplained inconsistency between the sophisticated language with which the Respondent rebuffed the pre-Complaint letter of demand which included a suggestion from the Respondent for negotiation of a co-existence agreement between the parties, and the perhaps questionable May 2, 2009 email from the Respondent in which it apparently sees the error in its action, apologises for its mistake and consents to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.”

Still, the Panel held that “…in this case that the consent-to-transfer request replaces the need to assess the matter under the elements of the Policy”.

Posted by: Nikos Prentoulis @ 16.56
Tags: Domain name disputes, Google, procedure, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA1099
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment

MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.

The Class 46 Archive








+44 (0)116 2747355

9 Cartwright Court, Cartwright Way
Bardon, Leicestershire
LE67 1UE


Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
Robert Harrison

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox