NOMINET UK DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE
DRS 3474
Grant and Cutler Limited v Robert Morrison 
Decision of Independent Expert

1.	Parties: 

Complainant:		Grant & Cutler Ltd
Country:		GB

Respondent:		Robert Morrison
Country:		MT

Disputed Domain Name

grantandcutler.co.uk (“the Domain Name”)

2.	Procedural Background:

The Complaint was lodged with Nominet in full on 27 February 2006. Nominet validated the Complaint.  The Respondent did not file a Response.  On 24 March 2006 the Complainant paid Nominet the appropriate fee for a decision of an Expert pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Policy (“the Policy”).

Cerryg Jones, the undersigned, (“the Expert”) confirmed to Nominet that he knew of no reason why he could not properly accept the invitation to act as expert in this case and further confirmed that he knew of no matters which ought to be drawn to the attention of the parties, which might appear to call into question his independence and/or impartiality. 

3.	Outstanding Formal/Procedural Issues (if any):
There are no other outstanding procedural issues that arise. 

4.	Background and the Complainant’s Contentions:

I have set out the substantive part of the Complaint in full below. As will become apparent, it merely consists of a few bare assertions, namely:

“I confirm that Domain Name(s) in dispute are identical or similar to a name or mark in which I have Rights.

I confirm that Domain Name(s) in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration.

Established in 1936, Grant & Cutler is a worldwide name in foreign-language bookselling. We have registered, and use, grantandcutler.com but have been unable to obtain the disputed domain name. The registrant of the disputed domain name is using it to host sites which are in commercial competition with us.”

The first two sentences are standard parts of the Complaint which a Complainant is obliged to complete. The Complainant’s entire case is based on the next paragraph. No evidence has been filed by the Complainant to substantiate its Complaint, despite the clear recommendation contained in the Policy (at paragraph 2 c) that parties use Nominet’s guidance and help information, found on its website; the information contained in Nominet’s website makes it clear that a Complainant should (1) explain the nature of the right relied upon; (2) explain the grounds giving rise to the Complaint; and (3) file evidence to corroborate (1) and (2). 

5.	Discussion and Findings:

Paragraph 2 of the Policy requires that for the Complainant to succeed it has to prove to the Expert on a balance of probabilities, that it has rights in respect of a name or mark identical or similar to the Domain Name and that the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent is an abusive registration (as defined in paragraph 1 of the Policy).

Complainant’s Rights

No evidence has been filed by the Complainant to substantiate what rights it relies upon; the Complaint therefore affords me no real basis for determining the nature or existence of any rights the Complainant may have, and therefore whether the Domain name is identical or similar to a name or mark in which the Complainant has rights. However, the papers sent by Nominet include an extract from Companies House (this is Nominet’s standard practice in respect of corporate entities that file Complaints), which shows that the registrant is a limited company known as Grant and Cutler Limited. It is only on that basis that I am willing to find that the Complainant has rights in a name that is identical to the Domain Name, though I do so with considerable misgivings given the clear guidance set out on Nominet’s website as to the desirability of adducing evidence of ownership of the rights in issue. 

Abusive Registration

The Complainant also has to show that the domain name is an abusive registration. Paragraph 1 of the Policy defines this as a domain name which either: 
i. was registered or otherwise acquired in a manner, which at the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage 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." 
A non-exhaustive list of factors, which may be evidence of an abusive registration, are set out in paragraph 3a of the Policy. However, these are only examples of conduct, which may be evidence that a domain name is an abusive registration. 
The Complainant’s submissions and evidence are wholly inadequate to enable me to determine whether the Domain Name is an abusive registration. This is not surprising; a few bare assertions, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, is miles away from establishing what is required for a successful Complaint under the DRS Policy.

Accordingly, I find that the Domain Name is not an abusive registration.

6.	Decision:

In the light of the foregoing findings, namely that the Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical to the Domain Name and that the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is not an abusive registration, I direct that no action be taken. 

Cerryg Jones          4 April  2006