[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service >> Panbet Ltd v Bonsu [2006] DRS 3643 (22 June 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2006/3643.html Cite as: [2006] DRS 3643

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

 


Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service

DRS 03643

Panbet Limited v Francis Bonsu

Decision of Independent Expert

1. Parties

Complainant: Panbet Limited

Country: UK

Respondent: Francis Bonsu

Country: UK

2. Domain Name

Panbet.co.uk ("the Domain Name")

3. Procedural Background

The Complaint was lodged with Nominet on May 2, 2006. Nominet validated the Complaint and notified the Respondent of the Complaint on May 2, 2006 and informed the Respondent that he had 15 days within which to lodge a Response. The Respondent did not reply. On May 31, 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").

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

On June 8, 2006 the Expert requested further information in the form of a procedural order. The Expert requested that the Complainant provided the following

documentation by June 16, 2006.

1. Documentary evidence that the Respondent is a former employee of Mr

Leonid Bouryi, the owner of the Complainant; and

2. Copies of all related correspondence or other written evidence that Mr

Bonsu has demanded £500,000 or £15,000 for return of the Domain Name;

Following production of this evidence by the Complainant pursuant to this

request the Respondent was given 7 days to comment on such evidence but did not so comment.

4. The Facts

The Complainant is the owner of a UK trade mark registration for Panbet for, inter alia, gaming services.

The Respondent made the application for the Domain Name on 21 June 2000 whilst an employee of Mr Leonid Bouryi, the owner of the Complainant.

5. The Parties' Contentions

Complainant

The substance of the Complaint can be summarised as follows:

1. The Domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered trade mark Panbet. The Complainant has been using the name Panbet since its incorporation on 27 June 2000 for online betting, gambling and gaming services. The Complainant also owns panbet.com and panbet.net.

2. The registrant, Francis Bonsu, is a former employee of Mr Leonid Bouryi, the owner of the Complainant. Contrary to the instructions of Mr Bouryi, Mr Bonsu registered the Domain Name in his own name rather than the name of Mr Bouryi. The Complainant paid for the registration of the Domain Name. The other domains so registered were transferred to the Complainant. Mr Bonsu was difficult to contact, but when contact was made he demanded £500,000 and then £15,000 for transfer of the Domain Name.

Respondent

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.

6. Discussion and Findings:

General

To succeed in this Complaint the Complainant has to prove to the Expert pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Policy on the balance of probabilities, first, that it has Rights (as defined in paragraph 1 of the Policy) in respect of a name or mark identical or similar to the Domain Name and, secondly, 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

In this case the first limb of that task is straightforward. The Complainant is the proprietor of a UK registered trade mark for Panbet. The Domain Name consists of the name or mark Panbet and the suffix <.co.uk>. In assessing whether or not a name or mark is identical or similar to a domain name, it is appropriate to discount the domain suffix, which is of no relevant significance and wholly generic.

The Expert finds that the Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark, which is identical or substantially identical to the Domain Name.

Abusive Registration

This leaves the second limb. Is the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent an Abusive Registration? Paragraph 1 of the Policy defines "Abusive Registration" 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 that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration is set out in paragraph 3a of the Policy. There being no suggestion that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of making Abusive Registrations and there being no suggestion that the Respondent has given to Nominet false contact details or diverted the Domain Name away from the Complainant's web site, the only potentially relevant 'factors' in paragraph 3 a are to be found in subparagraphs i and v which read as follows:

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

A. for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Domain Name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with acquiring or using the Domain Name;"

v "The Domain Name was registered as a result of a relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, and the Complainant:

A has been using the Domain Name registration exclusively; and

B paid for the registration and/or renewal of the Domain Name."

The Expert is of the opinion that the Respondent's conduct and use of the Domain Name is indicative of relevant abusive conduct. This is a case which seems to fall squarely within Section 3 a v of the Policy. The Respondent was employed by the Complainant to register the Domain Name and the Complainant paid for that registration. The Complainant has been exclusively using the registration. Further the fact that the Respondent has demanded money for the return of the Domain Name indicates that the names were registered to sell for profit to the Complainant falling within Section 3 a i of the Policy.

There is no obvious reason why the Respondent might be said to have been justified in registering the Domain Name and he has not responded to the Complaint or commented on subsequent evidence as to what happened produced by the Complainant in response to a request by the Expert.

In the view of the Expert the registration and use of the Domain Name as interpreted by the Policy took unfair advantage of and caused detriment to the Complainant's rights.

Accordingly, the Expert finds that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration within the definition of that term in paragraph 1 of the Policy.

7. Decision

In light of the foregoing findings, namely that the Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark which is similar to the Domain Name and that the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration, the Expert directs that the Domain Name panbet.co.uk be transferred to the Complainant.

June 22, 2006

Dawn Osborne