Barclays PLC v Afred Williams (Full Decision _Transfer) [2011] DRS 9717 (18 May 2011)

Barclays PLC v Afred Williams (Full Decision _Transfer) [2011] DRS 9717 (18 May 2011)

The panel found that the complainant satisfied all three elements required under the Nominet DRS Policy, namely, rights in the mark, lack of legitimate interest by the respondent, and bad faith registration and use.

Citation
[2011] DRS 9717
Parties
Complainant: Barclays PLC; Respondent: Afred Williams
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Domain Name Dispute / Full Decision
Outcome
Complaint upheld
Legal Topics
Domain Name Dispute, Trademark Infringement
Intellectual Property Internet Law Domain Name Dispute Trademark Infringement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays PLC

Complainant

Afred Williams

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Domain Name Dispute / Full Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
  3. 3 Whether the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that the complainant satisfied all three elements required under the Nominet DRS Policy, namely, rights in the mark, lack of legitimate interest by the respondent, and bad faith registration and use.

Court Disposition

Complaint upheld

Orders

  • The domain name is to be transferred to the complainant