"Dr. Martens" International Trading GmbH v Trevor Gibson (Summary Decision _Transfer) [2017] DRS 19504 (12 December 2017)

The panel found that the complainant had established all three elements required under the Nominet DRS Policy and ordered the transfer of the domain name to the complainant.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2017] DRS 19504
Parties: Complainant: "Dr. Martens" International Trading GmbH; Respondent: Trevor Gibson
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 12 December 2017
Procedural Posture: Domain Name Dispute / Summary Decision
Outcome: Domain name transferred to complainant
Legal Topics: Domain Name Dispute, Trademark Infringement

Intellectual Property Internet Law Domain Name Dispute Trademark Infringement

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

"Dr. Martens" International Trading GmbH

Complainant

Trevor Gibson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Domain Name Dispute / Summary Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether the registration of the domain name infringes the complainant's trademark rights
2 Whether the respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name
3 Whether the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that the complainant had established all three elements required under the Nominet DRS Policy and ordered the transfer of the domain name to the complainant.

Court Disposition

Domain name transferred to complainant

Orders

Transfer of the disputed domain name to "Dr. Martens" International Trading GmbH

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.