Zara Holdings Ltd -v- Commerce Internet Ltd [2002] DRS 576 (3 December 2002)

Zara Holdings Ltd -v- Commerce Internet Ltd [2002] DRS 576 (3 December 2002)

The complainant failed to prove it had rights in 'ZHL' at the time the respondent registered the domain name. The respondent did not register or use the domain name in a manner that took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the complainant's rights. The respondent's intent to auction the domain name, absent knowledge of the complainant's rights at registration, did not constitute abusive registration.

Citation
[2002] DRS 576
Parties
Complainant: Zara Holdings Limited; Respondent: Commerce Internet Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Domain Name Dispute / Expert Determination Under Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service
Outcome
Complaint rejected
Legal Topics
Domain Name Disputes, Passing Off, Abusive Registration, Goodwill and Reputation
Intellectual Property Information Technology Domain Name Disputes Passing Off Abusive Registration Goodwill and Reputation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zara Holdings Limited

Complainant

Commerce Internet Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Domain Name Dispute / Expert Determination Under Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant had rights in the domain name 'zhl.co.uk' at the time of the respondent's registration
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's registration or use of the domain name constituted an abusive registration under the Nominet Policy

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant failed to prove it had rights in 'ZHL' at the time the respondent registered the domain name. The respondent did not register or use the domain name in a manner that took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the complainant's rights. The respondent's intent to auction the domain name, absent knowledge of the complainant's rights at registration, did not constitute abusive registration.

Court Disposition

Complaint rejected