Ambookan v Elife Ltd [2009] DRS 6832 (19 May 2009)

Ambookan v Elife Ltd [2009] DRS 6832 (19 May 2009)

The complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence of rights in the name or mark 'computeruser' and failed to show that the respondent's registration or use of the domain name was abusive under the DRS Policy. The domain name is generic and descriptive, and there is no evidence of targeting or confusion. Registration and sale of generic domain names is not abusive in principle.

Citation
[2009] DRS 6832
Parties
Complainant: Paulson Ambookan; Respondent: Elife Limited, c/o Mohammad Zaffer
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Domain Name Dispute / Expert Determination
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Domain Names, Trademark Rights, Abusive Registration, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Intellectual Property Internet Law Domain Names Trademark Rights Abusive Registration Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paulson Ambookan

Complainant

Elife Limited, c/o Mohammad Zaffer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Domain Name Dispute / Expert Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant has rights in a name or mark identical or similar to the domain name
  2. 2 Whether the domain name in the hands of the respondent is an abusive registration

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence of rights in the name or mark 'computeruser' and failed to show that the respondent's registration or use of the domain name was abusive under the DRS Policy. The domain name is generic and descriptive, and there is no evidence of targeting or confusion. Registration and sale of generic domain names is not abusive in principle.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed

Orders

  • The domain name computeruser.co.uk shall remain with the respondent.
  • No finding of reverse domain name hijacking is made against the complainant.