Časopis Duševné vlastníctvo

Tomáš Klinka

Z rozhodnutí Centra ADR
Rozhodnutie 32/2021 z 5.10.2021

Issues from Decisions of the Domain Name ADR Center
Decision 32/2021. 5.10.2021

Duševné vlastníctvo, Volume 27, Number 1/2023, pages 66 – 68

URL: https://www.indprop.gov.sk/dv/casopis-dusevne-vlastnictvo/archiv/2023-1/1-2023/tomas-klinka

PLNÝ TEXT ČLÁNKU (PDF, 122,5 kB) (= FULL TEXT)

Odporúčaná forma citácie článku: / Recommended form for quotation of the article:

KLINKA, T. 2023. Z rozhodnutí Centra ADR: Rozhodnutie 32/2021 z 5.10.2021. In Duševné vlastníctvo [online]. Vol. 27 No. 1, 2023. ISSN 1339-5564, pp. 66 – 68.  Available at: https://www.indprop.gov.sk/dv/casopis-dusevne-vlastnictvo/archiv/2023-1/1-2023/tomas-klinka

Abstract:

The complainant is a holder of a non-exclusive trademark license to the trademark „Hammer Strength“. The domain name holder conducts business in the area of fitness. He registered for himself the domain name „hammerstrength.sk„. The domain was never put into use. The Expert concluded that the complainant has legal standing to file an ADR complaint because he provided the ADR Center with an ad hoc consent of the trademark owner to initiate these proceedings as a non-exclusive licensee. Such consent of a licensee requires clear identification of the trademark, domain name, and domain name holder. The Expert found that the domain name is identical to the registered trademark. Owing to the domain name holder’s business activities in the same area, and despite non-use of the domain name, the Expert concluded that the case concerns a double-identity scenario where the likelihood of confusion is to be presumed. The lack of good faith was derived from a continuous non-use of the domain name for a period exceeding two years. The domain name holder failed to prove any legitimate interest to use the domain name. The complaint was thus successful and the domain was subsequently transferred to the complainant.

Key words:

legitimation active, requirements for consent of the trademark owner, non-use for a period of 2 years, double identity, domain eligibility for legitimate use, evaluation of evidence