Business Magazine

Marchex & Berryhill Beat Back UDRP On

Posted on the 27 December 2012 by Worldwide @thedomains

Liam Sutcliffe, Eurocycles & Eurobaby and Eurotrek Group Limited of Dublin, Ireland (LIAM) brought a UDRP against Marchex (MCRX) who as always was represented by John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq on the domain name

The problem with the case is that the complaint (LIAM) that claimed registered and common law trademarks basically did have either.

I don’t know if the domain holder asked for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) but it would seem to be applicable to the shabby case laid out by the “trademark Holder”

Here are the short but relevant facts and finding by the panel:

“The Complainants, who are all based in Dublin, Ireland, claim rights in both the registered and unregistered trademarks EUROBABY EUROCYCLES and EUROBABY in respect of, inter alia, bicycles, car seats, children’s car seats, prams, strollers (and the like) and baby clothing. “:

“The Complainants’ Eurotrek Group Limited and Eurocycles & Eurobaby claim to have been trading in Ireland since 1999/2000″.


“While neither party seriously disputes that the disputed domain name incorporates a dominant feature of the Complainants’ claimed trademark of Eurobaby, the Complainants’ evidence of holding rights in that mark is thin, to say the least. ”

“The Community Trademarks relied on by the Complainants were only applied for on May 15, 2012, and only just before the filing of the Complaint. None of these marks had issued as a registered trademark as at the date of filing of the Complaint”.

“As to unregistered trademark rights, sometimes called common law rights, the Complainants state that “Eurotrek Group/Eurocycles Eurobaby has been trading in Ireland since 1999/2000. In that time they have acquired unregistered rights in the name Eurobaby”. They attach as evidence of this an archived parking page from April 1, 2001 showing”.

“However no corroborative evidence of actual trading under the EUROBABY mark as at late 2004 (when the Respondent claims to have acquired the disputed domain name) has been provided.”

“The archived parking page from 2001 simply states “test page for” and no more. It does not show any active trading. ”

“As the Complaint fails under another Policy head, the Panel need not determine whether the Complainants have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i). The Panel does note, however, that the Complainants’ evidence of the extent of their claimed unregistered trademark rights, even in 2012, lacks detail and corroboration”.


Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog