Domain Name in UK Law
Merck Kgaa v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation and Others
I therefore find and hold that Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (which is the contractual counterparty) is in breach of the 1970 Agreement as indicated above. I will (as sought in paragraph 4 of the prayer for relief) declare that Merck US has breached its contractual obligations contained in the 1970 Agreement and the 1975 Protocol. The precise form of injunctive relief must be considered after this judgment is handed down.
Musical Fidelity Ltd v Vickers
For my part, I do not understand how he can assert that. The statement might perhaps have been true prior to June 2001 when Vickers Hi-fi was one of MF's authorised distributors. But it is plainly untrue now, and I do not follow how the contrary is arguable. In my judgment, any reader of that legend, having been led to the Vickers Hi-Fi web site via the domain name, would understand it as meaning nothing other than that Vickers Hi-Fi was and is one of MF's authorised distributors.
British Telecommunications Plc v One in A Million Ltd
In my view there can be discerned from the cases a jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief where a defendant is equipped with or is intending to equip another with an instrument of fraud. Whether any name is an instrument of fraud will depend upon all the circumstances. A name which will, by reason of its similarity to the name of another, inherently lead to passing-off is such an instrument.
It is accepted that the name Marks & Spencer denotes Marks & Spencer Plc and nobody else. Thus anybody seeing or hearing the name realises that what is being referred to is the business of Marks & Spencer Plc. It follows that registration by the appellants of a domain name including the name Marks & Spencer makes a false representation that they are associated or connected with Marks & Spencer Plc.
Mr Wilson submitted that mere registration did not amount to passing-off. The placing on a register of a distinctive name such as marksandspencer makes a representation to persons who consult the register that the registrant is connected or associated with the name registered and thus the owner of the goodwill in the name.
Mr Wilson also submitted that it was not right to conclude that there was any threat by the appellants to use or dispose of any domain name including the words Marks & Spencer. He submitted that the appellants, Mr Conway and Mr Nicholson, were two rather silly young men who hoped to make money from the likes of the respondents by selling domain names to them for as much as they could get.
Mr Wilson pointed to the fact that there are people called Sainsbury and Ladbroke and companies, other than Virgin Enterprises Ltd, who have as part of their name the word Virgin and also people or firms whose initials would be BT. He went on to submit that it followed that the domain names which the appellants had registered were not inherently deceptive. Thus, he submitted, there was no foundation for the injunctive relief in the actions brought by four of the respondents.
The Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2020
...... (d) (d) delete a fully qualified domain name and take any steps necessary to facilitate the registration of that ......
The Network and Information Systems (Amendment and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2020
...... their name; . the name and address of the nominated person; and . up-to-date ... within the United Kingdom in any consecutive 168-hour period for domains registered within the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ......
The Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018
...... (a) (a) provide the following— . (i) the operator’s name and the essential services it provides; . (ii) the time the NIS incident .... (2) For the essential service of Top Level Domain (”TLD”) Name Registries the threshold requirement in the United ......
Coronavirus (Scotland) (No.2) Act 2020
...... (a) (a) that the eviction ground named by sub-paragraph (1) applies, and . (b) (b) that all or part of the rent ... maintained by, or on behalf of, the Service with the internet domain name scotcourts.gov.uk.”, . (b) (b) in paragraph 5, after paragraph (a) ......
Legal strategies in resolving domain name disputes
Describes how the Internet revolution has created a wide range of legal issues, with one of the more contentious being domain name disputes. Stresses that it is important for trademark owners to kn...
Domain name management.
...Website addresses are valuable business assets, yet 71 per cent of companies have never audited their domain names for balance sheet purposes and some fast-moving consumer goods companies own up to 40,000 domain names, according to NOP research. Doma......
Internationalized access to domain names: a review of methods and issues
Purpose: This article aims to understand the opportunities as well as the challenges posed by the methods for internationalized access to domain names. Design/methodology/approach: The paper first...
Searching locally: a comparison of Yehey! and Google
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Filipino search engine, Yehey! against what has become the industry standard, Google. Design/methodology/approach: A total of 14 queries were ......... returned from each were examined for dates created and modiﬁed, domain name, the presence of dead or advertising links, the quality of the site ......
- Can I Keep My .eu Domain Name?
- Domain Name Update
UK: Nominet domain name take downs on the up
Nominet, the Registry responsible for running the .UK domain name space, has recently published a report on the number of domain names it has suspended further to requests from law enforcement agen...
WIPO Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy: Single sale sufficient to prove legitimate interests
In a recent case under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Panel denied a domain name transfer on the basis that a...