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 >> Marks Sattin v Chao Investments Ltd [2007] DRS 4474 (16 April 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2007/4474.html Cite as: [2007] DRS 4474 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Marks Sattin v Chao Investments Limited
Decision of Independent Expert
Complainant: Marks Sattin
Country: GB
Respondent: Chao Investments Limited
Postcode: 1151
Disputed Domain Name
markssatin.co.uk ("the Domain Name")
The Complaint was lodged with Nominet in full on 19 February 2007. No Response was filed. On 23 March, the Complainant paid Nominet the appropriate fee for a decision of an Expert pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Policy ("the Policy").
Cerryg Jones, the undersigned, ("the Expert") confirmed to Nominet that he knew of no reason why he could not properly accept the invitation to act as expert in this case and further confirmed that he knew of no matters which ought to be drawn to the attention of the parties, which might appear to call into question his independence and/or impartiality.
There are no other outstanding procedural issues that arise.
The Complainant is a UK based recruitment agent providing jobs in the accountancy, tax, finance and consultancy sectors. According to its website at www.markssattin.co.uk, it has been established since 1988.
The Respondent operates a website at www.markssatin.co.uk (which is identical to the URL operated by the Complainant save for the deletion of a "t"), which also offers financial recruitment consultancy service and contains links to financial recruitment sites operated by the Complainant's competitors. The Respondent has been found to have made an abusive registration in a number of expert decisions in the past two years under the DRS (decisions 4219, 4253, 4271, 4297, 4323 and 4353).
The Complainant alleges (a) that the Domain Name is a misspelling of, and confusingly similar to, the Claimant's domain name in which the Claimant asserts it has rights, and that such misspelling is a deliberate strategy designed to intentionally mislead the public into believing that the Respondent's website is in fact the website of the Complainant; (b) that due to the similarity between the domain names, the Complainant is losing traffic to its own site; (c) that the Respondent had no legitimate interest in registering the Domain Name other than to use it as an instrument of fraud; and (d) the registration is unfair and detrimental to the Complainant as it is likely to divert customers intending to do business with the Complainant to other companies who knowingly or unknowingly have been linked to the website associated to the Domain Name.
The Respondent has not filed a Response
The first question that needs to be decided is whether the Complainant has "rights," (as defined by the DRS Policy), in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name.
Decisions under the DRS have established that this is a low threshold. Mindful of this approach, I accept on the basis of the evidence filed with the Complaint and the Complainant's website that the Complainant's trade under the MARKS SATTIN name is sufficient in nature and extent to establish rights in a name or mark that is similar to the Domain Name.
Under paragraph 3 c of the DRS Policy there is a presumption of an abusive registration if the Respondent is found to have made three or more abusive registrations under the DRS in the two years prior to the filing of a complaint. The Respondent has not filed a Response and so has failed to rebut that presumption. On that basis alone I am bound to find that the Domain Name is an abusive registration. In any event, I have reached a clear view based on (a) the decisions referred to above in which the Respondent has been found to have made several previously abusive registrations under the DRS; (b) the obvious misspelling of the MARKS SATTIN mark, and the adverse inferences to be drawn from this in the absence of any Response; and (c) on the Respondent's use of the Domain Name, that the Domain Name constitutes an abusive registration.
In the light of the foregoing findings, namely that the Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark which is similar to the Domain Name and that the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an abusive registration, I direct that it be transferred.
Cerryg Jones 16 April 2007
