Facebook Pixel Code
x
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Disputes on Domain Name - Discussion and Findings

This is a preview of the 8-page document
Read full text

The use of extensions on the domain names incorporating the name quick leaks is not identical. However, these extensions are of no real significance in terms of distinguishing the domain names from the Complainant’ s trademark and trade names.   Thus the domain names are confusingly similar to the trade names and marks in question. The disputed names do not have to be verbatim as long as there is sufficient repetition in the name to suggest to an objective observer or consumer that the names are related (L’ Oreal/L’ Oreal Australia Pty v Namewise Pty Ltd /Nicholas Bolton, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre Case No.

DAU 2013-0009).   An extension to the domain name however may be such that it serves to distinguish the domain name from the trade names or trademarks so that it is clear that the domain name is distinct from the trade name or trademarks and is not affiliated (The Crown in Right of the State of Tasmania trading as “ Tourism Tasmania” v Gordan James Craven WIPO, 2003).     The use of extensions on the domain names incorporating the name quick leaks is not identical.

However, these extensions are of no real significance in terms of distinguishing the domain names from the Complainant’ s trademark and trade names.   Thus the domain names are confusingly similar to the trade names and marks in question. The disputed names do not have to be verbatim as long as there is sufficient repetition in the name to suggest to an objective observer or consumer that the names are related (L’ Oreal/L’ Oreal Australia Pty v Namewise Pty Ltd /Nicholas Bolton, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre Case No. DAU 2013-0009).   An extension to the domain name however may be such that it serves to distinguish the domain name from the trade names or trademarks so that it is clear that the domain name is distinct from the trade name or trademarks and is not affiliated (The Crown in Right of the State of Tasmania trading as “ Tourism Tasmania” v Gordan James Craven WIPO, 2003).     It should first be noted that although an extension is used with the word Quickileaks so that the domain name is Quickileaks. sucks, the trade name Quickileaks is not a generic term.

Had it been a generic term, it would be easier for the respondent to argue that that domain name does not serve to create confusion in the minds of the consumer (Telstra Corporation Limited v Mandino Pty Ltd. , 2006). The word Quickileaks is an invention by the complainant and as such can create confusion as to its connection to other sites or services of goods bearing the same name despite qualifying extensions.   The respondent argues that its domain name Quickileak-sucks is a plumbing business and quite different from the complaint’ s journalism objectives.   Moreover, the respondent argues that a disclaimer on its website avowing that it is not connected with Quickileaks should clarify any confusion as to the linkages between the domain name and the trade name.    

This is a preview of the 8-page document
Open full text
Close ✕
Tracy Smith Editor&Proofreader
Expert in: Law, Sociology, Religion and Theology
Hire an Editor
Matt Hamilton Writer
Expert in: Law, Social science, History
Hire a Writer
preview essay on Disputes on Domain Name - Discussion and Findings
  • Pages: 8 (2000 words)
  • Document Type: Essay
  • Subject: Law
  • Level: Ph.D.
WE CAN HELP TO FIND AN ESSAYDidn't find an essay?

Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples

Contact Us