Bifalgorithm post · Property · Finally, this Administrative Panel does not

Legitimate

Legitimate (Property · Finally, this Administrative Panel does not) — "accept the Complainant’s contention that “it is not possible to conceive of any plausibl…

Ideas in this flowchart

  • La Complainante n’a pas satisfait à la charge de la preuve concernant l’absence d’usage légitime et la mauvaise foi.
  • La Complainante soutient qu’aucun usage plausible du nom de domaine ne pourrait être légitime.
  • Les usages allégués comme illégitimes comprennent le passing off et les atteintes au droit de la consommation ou au droit des marques.
  • La formulation de cet argument provient de l’affaire Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows.
  • Dans l’affaire Telstra, la marque concernée était un mot inventé.
  • Dans la présente affaire, la marque est un mot anglais courant ayant plusieurs significations.
  • Il n’est donc pas inconcevable que le nom de domaine puisse faire l’objet d’un usage légitime et plausible.
  • Le Défendeur a affirmé avoir utilisé et vouloir utiliser le nom de domaine à des fins légitimes.
  • Le Défendeur soutient également qu’il n’a pas enregistré ni utilisé le nom de domaine de mauvaise foi.
  • Les éléments produits à l’appui de ces affirmations sont peu solides, mais restent compatibles avec celles-ci.
Feed/

Legitimate

Channel

Property

1 page

"accept the Complainant’s contention that “it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual 603 or contemplated active use of the [D]omain [N]ame by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law”. The words in quotation marks come from Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000- 0003. In the Telstra case, the trademark in question was an invented word. In this case the mark in question is a common word in the English language, with a number of meanings. Unlike the situation in the Telstra case, therefore, it is far from inconceivable that there is a plausible legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the domain name. The Respondent has asserted a legitimate use to which he has put, and intends to put, the domain name. Whilst the evidence provided in support of this assertion is not particularly strong, it is at least consistent with that assertion, and with his overall contention that he did not register and has not been using the domain name in bad faith. The Complainant has thus failed to satisfy the burden of proof on this point."

Flowchart preview
Series cover
👍
0
0 comments0 shares

Sign in to view and post comments.