FirstRungNow Ltd (t/a FirstRungNow) v Holmes [2009] DRS 7175 (07 July 2009)

FirstRungNow Ltd (t/a FirstRungNow) v Holmes [2009] DRS 7175 (07 July 2009)

The complainant established rights in a similar name or mark, but failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the domain names in the hands of the respondent were abusive registrations under the Nominet DRS Policy. The respondent registered the domain names before the complainant's rights arose, and there was mutual responsibility for any confusion. No evidence supported reverse domain name hijacking.

Citation
[2009] DRS 7175
Parties
Complainant: FirstRungNow Ltd; Respondent: Paul Holmes
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Domain Name Dispute / Expert Determination Under Nominet DRS
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Domain Name Disputes, Trademark Rights, Abusive Registration, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Intellectual Property Internet Law Domain Name Disputes Trademark Rights 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FirstRungNow Ltd

Complainant

Paul Holmes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Domain Name Dispute / Expert Determination Under Nominet DRS

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant has rights in a name or mark identical or similar to the domain names
  2. 2 Whether the domain names in the hands of the respondent constitute an abusive registration under Nominet DRS Policy

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant established rights in a similar name or mark, but failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the domain names in the hands of the respondent were abusive registrations under the Nominet DRS Policy. The respondent registered the domain names before the complainant's rights arose, and there was mutual responsibility for any confusion. No evidence supported reverse domain name hijacking.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed

Orders

  • No action required