.svg){kind=icon}
Tomáš Klinka, Martin Husovec, Ľubomír Lukič
Z rozhodnutí Centra ADR pre doménové spory: Rozhodnutie 1/2017. 01.02.2018
Issues from Decisions of the Domain Name ADR Center: Decision 1/20217. 01.02.2018
Duševné vlastníctvo, Volume 25, Number 1/2021, pages 86 - 87
URL: https://www.indprop.gov.sk/?klinka-t-husovec-m-lukic-l-1-2021-en
FULL ARTICLE AVAILABLE (PDF, 118,3 kB) (.pdf, 17 kB)
Recommended form for quotation of the article:
KLINKA, T., HUSOVEC, M., LUKIČ, Ľ. 2021. Z rozhodnutí Centra ADR pre doménové spory: Rozhodnutie 1/2017 z 1. februára 2018. In Duševné vlastníctvo. [online]. Vol. 25 No. 1, 2021. ISSN 1339-5564, pp. 86 - 87. Available at: https://www.indprop.gov.sk/?klinka-t-husovec-m-lukic-l-1-2021-en
Abstract
The Complainant requested that a domain name vogue.sk be transferred from its current domain name holder to herself on the basis of an infringement of its right to trademarks „VOGUE", with effect for the Slovak Republic. At the time of submission and decision about the complaint by the Panel of Experts, the domain name vogue.sk was not publically used. However, it was proven that, until the notofication about the dispute, the domain was used to redirect to a webpage with a fashion content and presentation of a designer collection. The collection was designed by a wife of previous domain name holder, who is at the same time co-manager and co-shareholder in the company of the present domain name holder. The Panel of Experts concluded that the trademark „VOGUE" and the domain name vogue.sk are identical and that a likelihood of confusion exists between the two. As far as the alleged repute of the trademark is concerned, the Panel of Experts accepted the possibility of its existence, however, did not rule on this basis due to lacking evidence about reputation of the trademark with respect to relevant part of the public, i.e. consumers in the Slovak Republic. 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 in acquiring of the domain name because of acquisition and use of the domain for ownenrichment in order to attract users to a competing website providing identical goods and services. The Panel Experts 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