.svg){kind=icon}
Tomáš Klinka
Z rozhodnutí Centra ADR: Rozhodnutie 17/2019 z 18.11.2019
Issues from Decisions of the Domain Name ADR Center: Decision 17/2019. 18.11.2019
Duševné vlastníctvo, Volume 26, Number 3-4/2022, pages 110 - 111
PLNÝ TEXT ČLÁNKU (PDF, 1,5 MB)
Odporúčaná forma citácie článku:
LUKÁČ, Ľ. 2022. Z rozhodnutí Centra ADR: Rozhodnutie 17/2019 z 18.11.2019. In Duševné vlastníctvo [online]. Vol. 26 No. 3-4, 2022. ISSN 1339-5564, pp. 110 – 111. Dostupné na: https://www.indprop.gov.sk/dv/casopis-dusevne-vlastnictvo/archiv/2022-1/3-4-2022/tomas-klinka-rozhodnutie-17-2019
Abstrakt:
The Complainant requested that a domain name <1xbet.sk> be transferred from its current Holder to itself on the basis of an alleged threat of interference with its rights to word and figurative trademarks „1xbet“ with respect to the European Union, thus also in the Slovak Republic. Both trademarks were filed with right of priority more than 2,5 years before the registration of the disputed Domain by the Holder. At the time of submission and decision about the complaint by the Expert, the <1xbet.sk> domain was not publicly used. The Expert stated the identity and similarity of the 1xbet trademarks with the <1xbet.sk> domain and the resultant likelihood of confusion between them. The well-known reputation of Protected Mark within Slovak Republic territory or in relation to Slovak Republic, was not proved. The Holder did not prove any right or legitimate interest concerning the Domain, in particular for the purpose of preventing the Complainant from using the Protected Mark within the corresponding Domain, for the purpose of disrupting the economic activities of the Complainant or to make an unlawful profit. The very fact that the Holder does not use the Domain, linked to the Complainant’s concern of threat of law and otherwise unsubstantiated expressions about the speculative registration for the purpose of resale or rent the Domain, are not sufficient objective facts (evidence) leading to the conclusion that the Expert could state the lack of good faith. An Expert cannot supplement or search for substantive facts or evidence as it is the duty of the Party. By declaring non-compliance with all the necessary conditions laid down in the ADR Rules, the Expert rejected the proposal in its entirety.
Kľúčové slová:
similarity of signs, likelihood of confusion, trademark, bad faith, burden of proof, lack of right or legitimate interest, short term non-use of the domain