[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service >> Coventry University v Raven [2005] DRS 02670 (20 July 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2005/2670.html Cite as: [2005] DRS 2670, [2005] DRS 02670

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 


COVENTRY UNIVERSITY

-v-

RAVEN

Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service

DRS 02670

Decision of Independent Expert

1. PARTIES:

Complainant: Coventry University

Country: Great Britain

Respondent: Raven

Country: Poland

2. DOMAIN NAME:

COVENTRY-ISL.ORG.UK ("The Domain Name").

3. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

3.1      The dispute was entered into the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) system on 26 May 2005. Hardcopies of the complaint were received in full by Nominet on 26 May 2005 and Nominet validated the complaint and sent a copy to the Respondent on the same day.

4. OUTSTANDING FORMAL/PROCEDURAL ISSUES:

4.1      The Respondent has not submitted a response to Nominet in time (or at all) in compliance with paragraph 5(a) of the DRS Procedure for the conduct of proceedings under the Dispute Resolution Service ("the Procedure").
4.2      Paragraph 15(b) of the Procedure provides that: "If, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a party does not comply with any time period laid down in the Policy or this Procedure, the Expert will proceed to a Decision on the complaint."
4.3      Nominet has used all available contact details to try and bring the complaint to the Respondent's attention. There do not appear to be any exceptional circumstances involved, and in accordance with paragraph 15(b) of the Procedure, a Decision will be made on the complaint notwithstanding the absence of a response.

5. THE FACTS:

5.1      The Domain Name coventry-isl.org.uk was registered by the Respondent on 15 June 2004.
5.2      The Complainant, Coventry University is an academic institution. The Complainant changed its name from Coventry Polytechnic to Coventry University in 1992 and its roots may be traced as far back as 1843 to Coventry College of Design.
5.3      The Complainant has an academic presence regionally, nationally and internationally. In its information prospectus it states that it takes great care in providing a supportive environment for all its students.
5.4      The academic structure of the university comprises six schools: the School of Art and Design; the School of Business; the School of Engineering; the School of Health and Social Sciences; the School of Mathematical and Information Sciences; the School of Science and the Environment. Within each school there are subject groups and a number of centres and units to encourage development of particular aspects of the university's work and research. The School of Business offers degree courses in law, but at present does not have a School of International Studies in Law.
5.5      At the time the complaint was made the Domain Name resolved to a website headed "Coventry University". The website purported to be an official Coventry University site with details of the campus as well as referring to "The School of International Studies and Law" and its six research centres and also provided links to a number of other websites with pornographic material.
5.6      Whilst the current website at www.coventry-isl.org.uk has changed since the filing of the complaint and no longer refers to Coventry University, the cached pages of the website still show links to Coventry University including (on a search I conducted) one listing university law departments in England which gave details of Coventry University with www.coventry-isl.org.uk as the website for Coventry University. Anyone clicking on the hypertext link would be taken through to the website with links to explicit pornographic material.

6. THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:

6.1      The Complainant contends that the disputed Domain Name makes use of, and is similar to, the name in which the Complainant has Rights.
6.2      The Complainant also contends that the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration because:

i) it takes unfair advantage of Coventry University and its academic links in suggesting that it is an authorised information site for further education;

ii) it is used in connection with a website which is likely to cause damage to the Complainant's reputation by suggesting that the Complainant and / or its employees are associated with, support and / or promote the publication and use of pornography; and

iii) the Domain Name resolves to a website which is currently available to prospective students and their parents and could adversely affect both student intake and reputation of the Complainant.

6.3      The Complainant asserts that the use of the Domain Name in connection with a website linked to pornographic sites is particularly damaging during its critical six - eight week recruitment period.
6.4      In support of its claim, the Complainant asserts that it has received numerous complaints from prospective students and parents of prospective students concerning the website link to the Domain Name, coventry-isl.org.uk.
1. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
7.1      Paragraph 2 of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that:

i. the Complainant has Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name; and

ii. the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration (as those capitalised terms are defined in paragraph 1 of the Policy).

7.2      Rights as defined by paragraph 1 of the Policy: "includes, but is not limited to, rights enforceable under English law. However, a Complainant will be unable to rely on rights in a name of term which is wholly descriptive of the Complainant's business". In determining whether a party has Rights in a domain name, the first and second suffixes (.org.uk) should be ignored.
7.3      The Complainant has as an educational institution has used the word "Coventry" as part of its name since 1843. The Complainant also uses "Coventry" as part of the registered name, Coventry University Enterprises Limited (formerly Coventry Polytechnic Enterprises Limited). The name "Coventry" although not identical to "coventry-isl" is similar to that name. The addition of the hyphen and the letters "isl" are not sufficiently distinctive to prevent the name being similar to the name used by the Complainant, particularly as the Domain Name is being used in a way by the Respondent which is clearly intended to show an association with the Complainant.
7.4      The Respondent has not filed a Response and, in accordance with paragraph 15c, the Expert is entitled to draw such inferences from the parties' non-compliance as considered appropriate. As stated by the Appeal Panel in DRS 00248 Seiko. UK Limited v Designer Time/Wanderweb: "The requirement to demonstrate "rights" is not a particularly high threshold test." On the basis that the Complainant has used the name "Coventry" in connection with an academic institution which traces its roots back to 1843, and in the absence of a response from the Respondent, I find that the Complainant has Rights in the name which is similar to the Domain Name.
7.5      A Domain Name is an Abusive Registration if it was either:

i. was registered or other wise acquired in a manner which, at the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights; OR

ii. has been used in a manner which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights.

7.6      For the purposes of the present dispute, to determine whether the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration, an assessment must be made as to whether the registration or subsequent use "took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights". The non-exhaustive list of factors which may be evidence of Abusive Registration is set out in paragraph 3 of the Policy. The most relevant of these to the Complainant's allegations are set out below:

i. Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or is otherwise acquired the Domain Name primarily:

C for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the business of the Complainant;

ii. Circumstances indicating that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in a way which has confused people or businesses into believing that the Domain Name is registered to, operated or authorised by, or otherwise connected with the Complainant.

7.7      The Domain Name resolves to a website headed "COVENTRY UNIVERSITY". The website purports to be the website of the Complainant and refers to "a School of International Studies and Law" and provides links to a number of pornographic sites. The linking of pornographic material to a website which purports to be that of the Complainant is unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's rights. Whilst the Complainant's website states that it takes "great care in providing a supportive environment for our students". the website at www.coventry-isl.org.uk contradicts this in providing links to explicit pornographic material.
7.8      The Complainant states that it has received numerous complaints from prospective students and parents of prospective students concerning the website at www.coventry-isl.org.uk. Whilst the Complainant has not submitted any written evidence that it has received such complaints it is recognised that such evidence may be difficult to obtain. Further, the Respondent has chosen not to dispute the Complainant's allegation by submitting a response disputing the claim.
7.8      The explicit nature of the material linked to the website using the Domain Name is likely to affect the reputation of the Complainant and student intake and have the effect of unfairly disrupting the business of the Complainant at a time which is crucial for recruiting new students to the university.
7.9      The website using the Domain Name purports to be an official website of the Complaint and is likely to confuse people into believing that the Domain name is registered to, or operated or authorised by the Complainant. Further, the cached pages of the website and the linking of the website using the Domain Name to the Complaint (referred to in paragraph 5.6 above) indicates that people have been confused into believing that the Domain Name is connected with the Complaint.
2. DECISION

For reasons set out above, the Expert finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Complainant has Rights in the name which is similar to the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration and directs that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.

Veronica M Bailey

Date: 20 July 2005