FirstRungNow Ltd (t/a FirstRungNow) v Holmes [2009] DRS 7175 (14 September 2009)

FirstRungNow Ltd (t/a FirstRungNow) v Holmes [2009] DRS 7175 (14 September 2009)

The complainant has rights in a name similar to the domain name, but has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the respondent's use of the domain name was actuated by anything other than a reasonable desire to use a descriptive term in the relevant field; thus, the domain name is not an abusive registration.

Citation
[2009] DRS 7175
Parties
Complainant/appellant: FirstRungNow Ltd; Respondent: Paul Holmes
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Domain Name Dispute Appeal / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abusive Registration, Trade Mark Rights, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Intellectual Property Domain Name Law Abusive Registration Trade Mark Rights 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

FirstRungNow Ltd

Complainant/appellant

Paul Holmes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Domain Name Dispute Appeal / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's use of the domain name constitutes abusive registration under Nominet's Policy
  2. 2 Whether the complainant has rights in a name or mark similar to the domain name
  3. 3 Whether the complainant's actions amount to reverse domain name hijacking

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant has rights in a name similar to the domain name, but has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the respondent's use of the domain name was actuated by anything other than a reasonable desire to use a descriptive term in the relevant field; thus, the domain name is not an abusive registration.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the Expert’s decision fails.
  • This is not a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.