Mediawebshop.nl: domain name claim through court or UDRP?

Domain names are registered on ‘first come, first served’ basis. This created a new phenomenon called: domain name hijacking. Quickly register domain names with names of famous people or famous brands with the aim of selling them for a lot of money. To stop this, the UDRP was invented, a quick and cheap procedure to reclaim a domain name. The UDRP is still very popular, but sometimes not the best route in a conflict, as became clear by the case of <mediawebshop.nl>.

The plaintiff and defendant have worked together for years. When parties separate, turmoil arises over the domain name. The defendant produces all kinds of WhatsApp messages from the past (that he had to record the domain name) and about the troubles regarding to the termination of the cooperation. According to him, the plaintiff's claim is not based on the truth at all. The UDRP dispute resolver is clear. This conflict has nothing to do with domain name hijacking, but the disentanglement of a cooperation. It ‘s a commercial dispute with complex facts. So a case for the judge. The case is therefore not taken into consideration.

internet-online-branding



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?