Pet Plan Limited v Scott Pruitt (Full Decision _Transfer) [2020] DRS 22074 (12 February 2020)

Pet Plan Limited v Scott Pruitt (Full Decision _Transfer) [2020] DRS 22074 (12 February 2020)

The panel found that the complainant had rights in the mark, the domain name was identical or similar, the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests, and the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

Citation
[2020] DRS 22074
Parties
Complainant: Pet Plan Limited; Respondent: Scott Pruitt
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Domain Name Dispute / Full Decision
Outcome
Transfer ordered
Legal Topics
Domain Name Dispute, Trade Mark Infringement
Intellectual Property Internet Law Domain Name Dispute Trade Mark 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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pet Plan Limited

Complainant

Scott Pruitt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Domain Name Dispute / Full Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the domain name is identical or similar to a name or mark in which the complainant has rights
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
  3. 3 Whether the domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that the complainant had rights in the mark, the domain name was identical or similar, the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests, and the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

Court Disposition

Transfer ordered

Orders

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