James Langham T/a Ainsley Fencing v Mr David Smith (Summary Decision _Transfer) [2015] DRS 15954 (01 July 2015)

James Langham T/a Ainsley Fencing v Mr David Smith (Summary Decision _Transfer) [2015] DRS 15954 (01 July 2015)

The complainant satisfied the requirements of the Nominet DRS Policy, and in the absence of a response from the respondent, the domain name was ordered to be transferred.

Citation
[2015] DRS 15954
Parties
Complainant: James Langham T/a Ainsley Fencing; Respondent: Mr David Smith
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Domain Name Dispute / Summary Decision
Outcome
domain name transfer ordered
Legal Topics
Domain Name Transfer, Trademark Infringement
Intellectual Property Internet Law Domain Name Transfer 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

James Langham T/a Ainsley Fencing

Complainant

Mr David Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Domain Name Dispute / Summary Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the domain name should be transferred to the complainant
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant satisfied the requirements of the Nominet DRS Policy, and in the absence of a response from the respondent, the domain name was ordered to be transferred.

Court Disposition

domain name transfer ordered

Orders

  • The domain name is to be transferred to the complainant.