Časopis Duševné vlastníctvo

Rozhodnutie 2/2018 z 5. marca 2018

Z rozhodnutí Centra ADR pre doménové spory: Rozhodnutie 2/2018. 5. marca 2018

Issues from Decisions of the Domain Name ADR Center: Decision 2/2018. 5. marca 2018

Duševné vlastníctvo, Volume 25, Number 2/2021, pages 60 - 61

URL: https://www.indprop.gov.sk/dv/casopis-dusevne-vlastnictvo/aktualne-cislo/z-rozhodnuti-centra-adr

PLNÝ TEXT ČLÁNKU (PDF, 114,9 kB) (= FULL TEXT)

Odporúčaná forma citácie článku:
LAZUR, J. 2021. Z rozhodnutí Centra ADR pre doménové spory Rozhodnutie 2/2018. 5. marca 2018. In Duševné vlastníctvo. Vol. 25 No. 2, 2021. ISSN 1339-5564, pp. 60 - 61. Available at: https://www.indprop.gov.sk/dv/casopis-dusevne-vlastnictvo/aktualne-cislo/z-rozhodnuti-centra-adr

---

Abstrakt

The Complainant requested that a domain name „prestigepark.sk“ is transferred from its current domain name holder to itself on the basis of an alleged infringement of rights to the Complainant’s company name. A contractual relationship existed between a company belonging to the Complainant’s corporate group and the current domain name holder on the basis of which the Complainant was one of the recipients entitled to receive IT services from the domain name holder. In connection with this contractual relationship, the domain name „prestigepark.sk“ had been registered by the current domain name holder, but the domain name holder did not transfer this domain to the Complainant notwithstanding the fact that the domain name holder had repeatedly (re-)invoiced the fees related to the domain and webhosting services to the Complainant. Repeatedly, the domain name holder refused to carry out the transfer of the domain to the Complainant; such refusal took place also at the time when the initial contractual relationship had already been terminated. The Expert concluded that there is a similarity between the Complainant’s company name „PRESTIGE PARK TRNAVA, s.r.o.“ and the domain name „prestigepark.sk“ and that likelihood of confusion exists between these two names. The domain name holder did not prove any right or legitimate interest concerning the domain name. The Complainant proved the domain name holder’s lack of good faith with respect to using the domain name in a way in which the domain name holder had been refusing to transfer the domain name to the Complaint notwithstanding the fact that the domain name holder had been supposed to register the domain in the name of the Complainant. This statement is corroborated also by the fact that the domain name holder repeatedly (re-)invoiced the fees related to the domain and webhosting services to the Complainant. At the same time, the domain name holder knew that the domain name “prestigepark.sk“ contains the dominant part of the Complainant’s company name and that the contents of the website available on this domain name is related to the full extent to the Complainant’s business activities. The ADR Expert thus concluded that all necessary conditions required by the Rules of ADR were met and therefore ordered the transfer of the domain to the Complainant.

Key words

identity of signs, likelihood of confusion, reputed trademark, relevant public, burden of proof, evidence of reputation, use of a domain for internal purposes, scope of ADR, geographical scope of ADR, protected signs under ADR