Deutsche Telekom AG v Lammtara Multiserve Ltd [2009] DRS 5856 (25 February 2009)

Deutsche Telekom AG v Lammtara Multiserve Ltd [2009] DRS 5856 (25 February 2009)

The panel found that although the respondent's use of the domain name post-dated the complainant's trade mark rights, there was no evidence of abusive registration. The respondent's use commenced innocently, the complainant had previously disclaimed interest in the domain name, and the offer to sell was not abusive given the context. The panel concluded that the respondent's conduct did not merit a finding of abusive registration under the Policy.

Citation
[2009] DRS 5856
Parties
Complainant/appellant: Deutsche Telekom AG; Respondent: Lammtara Multiserve Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Domain Name Dispute Appeal / Appeal Decision Following First Instance Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Expert upheld.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Abusive Registration, Domain Name Policy, Initial Interest Confusion
Intellectual Property Domain Name Disputes Trade Mark Infringement Abusive Registration Domain Name Policy Initial Interest Confusion

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Telekom AG

Complainant/appellant

Lammtara Multiserve Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Domain Name Dispute Appeal / Appeal Decision Following First Instance Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's use of the domain name constituted an abusive registration under the Nominet DRS Policy
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's use infringed the complainant's trade mark rights
  3. 3 Whether the offer to sell the domain name for €200,000 was abusive

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that although the respondent's use of the domain name post-dated the complainant's trade mark rights, there was no evidence of abusive registration. The respondent's use commenced innocently, the complainant had previously disclaimed interest in the domain name, and the offer to sell was not abusive given the context. The panel concluded that the respondent's conduct did not merit a finding of abusive registration under the Policy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Expert upheld.