Mutha Hood Limited v James Connolly (Full Decision _Transfer) [2018] DRS 20437 (12 November 2018)

Mutha Hood Limited v James Connolly (Full Decision _Transfer) [2018] DRS 20437 (12 November 2018)

The complainant established rights in the mark, the respondent had no legitimate interest, and the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Transfer of the domain name was ordered.

Citation
[2018] DRS 20437
Parties
Complainant: Mutha Hood Limited; Respondent: James Connolly
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
12 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Domain Name Dispute / Full Decision
Outcome
Complaint upheld
Legal Topics
Domain Name Dispute, Passing Off, Trademark Infringement
Intellectual Property Internet Law Domain Name Dispute Passing Off 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mutha Hood Limited

Complainant

James Connolly

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Domain Name Dispute / Full Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the domain name is identical or similar to a name or mark 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 or is being used in bad faith

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant established rights in the mark, the respondent had no legitimate interest, and the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Transfer of the domain name was ordered.

Court Disposition

Complaint upheld

Orders

  • Transfer of the domain name to the complainant