Raymarine Plc v Suchknecht [2006] DRS 3293 (3 March 2006)

Raymarine Plc v Suchknecht [2006] DRS 3293 (3 March 2006)

The complainant established rights in the name 'Raymarine' but failed to provide evidence that the domain name in the hands of the respondent was an abusive registration. Mere loss of the domain name through inadvertence and lack of evidence of respondent's use or intent do not satisfy the burden of proof for abusive registration.

Citation
[2006] DRS 3293
Parties
Complainant: Raymarine Plc; Respondent: Suchknecht
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Domain Name Dispute / Expert Determination
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Domain Name Registration, Abusive Registration, Burden of Proof
Intellectual Property Domain Name Disputes Trade Marks Domain Name Registration Abusive Registration Burden of Proof

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymarine Plc

Complainant

Suchknecht

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Domain Name Dispute / Expert Determination

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

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant established rights in the name 'Raymarine' but failed to provide evidence that the domain name in the hands of the respondent was an abusive registration. Mere loss of the domain name through inadvertence and lack of evidence of respondent's use or intent do not satisfy the burden of proof for abusive registration.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed

Orders

  • No action is taken