Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
Univé - reverse domain name hijacking: Internet - UDRP procedure domain name infringement

Univé - reverse domain name hijacking: Internet - UDRP procedure domain name infringement

Univé is not the owner of the website UNIVE.COM. This is a Pay Per Click ads website for universities. Univé started a procedure with WIPO to claim the name, based on its trademark registration from 1991, the brand awareness and use of the name since 1949.  

In a domain name procedure with WIPO  it must be demonstrated that (1) the domain name corresponds to the brand, (2) the holder does not own rights, and (3) that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
Univé not only failed to obtain the domain name and was ultimately convicted of misleading the panel.
Univé states that the domain name has been in her possession since 2000. In 2010 she allegedly forgot to renew the domain name on time, and the current holder of the domain name quickly snatched it away. The holder has no claims on the name Univé.
The defendant shows that Univé’s statements are not true. The domain had been in his possession since 2003 and he offers this ad for education in universities. The Panel therefore rules that Univé had no actual proof for use in bad faith. The allegation that defendant secretly transferred the domain name into her possession in 2010, is wrong. E-mail evidence showed that Univé was actually aware of this. That mistake is unacceptable. The claim is rejected and Univé sentenced to mislead the panel (filing a complaint in bad faith in order to obtain a domain name).
 

internet-online-branding

Domain Names
»
Internet online branding social media
»


Latest news
Abcor acquires Anchor Intellectual Property client portfolio
Christmas with M&S and Aldi
There is Only One NIELSON
False Hope for Descriptive Marks
Social media and the Olympics
Our Clients
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 53
Read this issue online »
Subscribe to newsletter »
Follow Abcor
IP Quiz
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP Knowledge Quiz Designs

The plaintiff specializes in online sales of children's bicycles. In safeguarding its rights, the company has registered the design of these bicycles under Community Design. Through a multiple design registration, the company secures the rights for 10 new versions of its children's bicycles simultaneously under Community Design. Subsequently, when the defendant introduces a similar bicycle, legal proceedings ensue. Among the various claims, the plaintiff alleges infringement of its design rights, which in turn is contested by the defendant. A design must possess novelty and individual character. The defendant states that the design lacks novelty, as elements of this design are already present in various existing bicycles. Essentially, the defendant's bicycles reproduce these elements, resulting in a lack of individual character. According to the defendant, the community designs are thus invalid. Even If the plaintiff's designs should be valid, the defendant argues that its bicycle deviates sufficiently. The defendant argues that the plaintiff has sought protection for more or less similar designs in the multiple design registration. Apparently, the plaintiff believes that these designs differ enough to create a different overall impression. The defendant's bicycles deviate just as much, thus creating a different overall impression (the so-called doctrine of equivalents argument). The question arises: are the plaintiff's bicycles valid designs despite comprising known aspects from various bicycles, or does the defendant's design exhibit sufficient deviation, thereby enabling the invocation of the doctrine of equivalents concerning the multiple design registration? The court determines that designers of children's bicycles enjoy considerable freedom in their designs. Consequently, if another bicycle lacks significant distinctions, it will quickly evoke a similar overall impression for the informed user, thereby lacking individual character. The comparison is drawn between the new design (the AMIGO bicycles from T.O.M.) and an older existing design (bicycle). To prove that a design is not new, you cannot, as Prijskiller (the defendant) asserts, mosaic together various elements. Therefore, as a defendant, you cannot argue that a design is not new because its characteristics are present in various different products (see also the judgment Karen Millen). If, as a designer, you combine different aspects from multiple designs for the first time into a new product, then this is simply a new and valid design. This is the case with the AMIGO bicycle. The design is upheld as valid. The AMIGO Magic bicycle features a unique tubular frame, rendering it novel. The bicycle is further distinguished by the name MAGIC, the chain guard design, and accessories such as a basket, handlebar streamers, and doll seat. Prijskiller contends that its frame shape differs (being thicker) and that the drawings are positioned differently. Additionally, Prijskiller highlights the distinct color scheme; however, TOM has registered the designs in line drawings, thus disregarding this element in the evaluation. Nevertheless, several similarities are apparent. Both bicycles exhibit an almost identical pattern of butterflies and flowers, positioned nearly identically on the frame. Furthermore, the name MAGIC is depicted in the same font and placement on the chain guard. Consequently, this bicycle fails to evoke a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive creative freedom in designing children's bicycles means that the differences highlighted by Prijskiller are minor and inconspicuous. Prijskiller's invocation of the doctrine of equivalents is likewise dismissed. The court opines that this case pertains to models concurrently deposited by T.O.M. This circumstance precludes the invocation of the "doctrine of equivalents" because, in compliance with the regulations regarding novelty, individual character, and the grace period, the various models cannot diminish each other's novelty or individual character, nor their scope of protection. In essence, in simultaneous (multiple) deposits, the "doctrine of equivalents" holds little significance. Consequently, these 2Cycle Magic bicycles fail to impart a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive freedom in designing children's bicycles and the minor differences highlighted by Prijskiller render the infringement claim upheld.
Play the quiz
»