Verbatim Ltd v Toth [2007] DRS 4331 (31 July 2007)

Verbatim Ltd v Toth [2007] DRS 4331 (31 July 2007)

The complainant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent was aware of the complainant or its brand at the date of registration or commencement of use, and the evidence did not establish that the respondent's use took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the complainant's rights. Accordingly, the domain name was not an abusive registration.

Citation
[2007] DRS 4331
Parties
Complainant/appellant: Verbatim Ltd; Respondent: Michael Toth
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
31 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Domain Name Dispute Appeal / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Domain Name Disputes, Abusive Registration, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Intellectual Property Domain Name Law Trade Marks Domain Name Disputes 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Verbatim Ltd

Complainant/appellant

Michael Toth

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Domain Name Dispute Appeal / Appeal Decision

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 under the Nominet DRS Policy

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent was aware of the complainant or its brand at the date of registration or commencement of use, and the evidence did not establish that the respondent's use took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the complainant's rights. Accordingly, the domain name was not an abusive registration.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No action to be taken in relation to the domain name
  • No finding of reverse domain name hijacking