Cybersquatter settles

The Times reports that The Dyslexic Domain Name Company has settled a dispute with Microsoft, concerning a number of domain names it has registered consisting of typos of various trade marks. Clive Gringrass, who wrote the article, and is Microsoft's UK representative on this matter writes:
"Trade mark legislation around the world and, in particular, the UK’s Trade Marks Act (1994) makes clear that these registrations are an infringement. Each of the registered domain names is identical - or as near as makes no legal difference - to the registered trade mark. The domain name – or “sign” - is then used in the course of trade to sell advertisements. This is flagrant trade mark infringement".
The IPKat hates to say it, but he thinks this might be right. Although his gut instinct was that any site clearly won't be that of the trade mark owner and so no confusion (unless we go down the initial interest confusion route), he thinks this is probably the elusive example of a mark which is different to the earlier mark, but in a way that consumers won't notice (otherwise they wouldn't have typed it by mistake), rendering it deemed to be identical under the LTJ Diffusion test. Two outstanding issues though: what are the goods/services for which it is being used? Is there trade mark use, sorry, make that is there use which harms one of the mark's functions, including the essential function?
Cybersquatter settles Cybersquatter settles Reviewed by Anonymous on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.