AOL LLC v Edoco Ltd [2008] DRS 5484 (17 April 2008)
The respondent, Edoco Limited, had been found to have made abusive registrations in three or more DRS cases in the two years prior to this complaint, triggering a presumption of abusive registration. The respondent failed to rebut this presumption. The complainant established rights in the name AOL and AOL mail, which are identical or similar to the disputed domain name. Therefore, the registration was found to be abusive.
- Citation
- [2008] DRS 5484
- Parties
- Complainant: AOL LLC; Respondent: Edoco Limited
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 17 April 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Domain Name Dispute / Decision of the Independent Expert
- Outcome
- Complaint upheld
- Legal Topics
- Domain Name Disputes, Abusive Registration, Trade Mark Rights
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
AOL LLC
Complainant
Edoco Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Domain Name Dispute / Decision of the Independent Expert
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the domain name aolmail.co.uk constitutes an abusive registration under the Nominet DRS Policy
- 2 Whether the complainant has rights in a name or mark identical or similar to the domain name
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent, Edoco Limited, had been found to have made abusive registrations in three or more DRS cases in the two years prior to this complaint, triggering a presumption of abusive registration. The respondent failed to rebut this presumption. The complainant established rights in the name AOL and AOL mail, which are identical or similar to the disputed domain name. Therefore, the registration was found to be abusive.
Court Disposition
Complaint upheld
Orders
- The domain name aolmail.co.uk is to be transferred to the complainant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment