Domain Disputes: Ultramax Products Ltd v. Anthony Mitchell, Claim Number: FA1712001764052
domain-1345116_640

Ultramax Products Ltd v. Anthony Mitchell, Claim Number: FA1712001764052

We, in 2018, advised and prepared documents in favour of Hydromax Products Limited (the Respondent), registered in Nevada, USA, concerning a Domain Disputes claim as per the International Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that was filed at ADR Forum P.O. Box 50191 Minneapolis, MN 55426.

Ultramax Products Limited (the Complainant), a company registered in the United Kingdom, filed a complaint on grounds that Hydromax Products Limited did not have legitimate reasons to utilise a domain name entailing the name Hydromax since it was a Trademark owned by the Complainant.

In that regard, the Complainant pleaded with ADR Forum to declare that the Respondent’s conduct is in breach of its Trademark based on the three-part test under Uniform Domain Name Disputes Resolution Policy: Identical and/or Confusingly Similar, Rights or Legitimate Interests, and Registration & Use in Bad Faith. Therefore, ADR Forum should declare the domain be transferred to the Complainant.

In such cases, it is imperative that the Complainant establishes that the Respondent did violate all the three elements, which are identical and/or confusingly similar, rights or legitimate interests, and registration & use in bad faith. However, for the Respondent to win, the Respondent will have to establish that any of the three elements has not been established.

In reference to this case, our documents established that the Complainant failed to establish the three elements, therefore, the decision was rendered in favour of the Respondent, our Client.

Practice Notes:

Uniform Domain Name Disputes Resolution Policy

Domain Disputes is a model of specialised legal field that assist individuals or juristic persons protect their respective Trademarks that are breached when a person registers a Domain name that is the same as or similar to their Trademark.

Based on our experience, it is evident that decisions concerning Domain Disputes are not made based on the precedents available but autonomy of the arbiters. As a result, there are high chances that the arbiters will reach different conclusions regardless of the similarity of facts.

Our correspondence with ICANN confirms the position, as we were informed the following:

The UDRP does not incorporate a choice of law principle. It requires panellists to decide a complaint in accordance with the UDRP Rules but it also allows them to apply any rules and principles of law they deem applicable. This means that some panellists apply the law of their own jurisdiction which they are familiar with, others consider the law of the jurisdiction where one or both of the parties are domiciled, whereas others choose to apply exclusively the UDRP Rules without turning to trade mark laws for their interpretation.

In that regard, Domain Disputes have the window for forum shopping as the model on how decisions are made is not standard and that can be influenced by the Legal Systems, personal principles, precedents or lack of the same.

In order to represent a Client effectively, one ought to understand all the available Domain Disputes forums, and model of decisions.

***