Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd (complainant), an internationally successful independent travel information company, was the owner of 12 registered trademarks containing the words 'Lonely Planet', in Australia and in a number of other jurisdictions. The Panelist noted the complainant's trademarks had an extensive international reputation.
The complainant argued that the registration of the disputed domain names, 'lonleyplanet.com', 'loneleyplanet.com'and'lonelyplanet.com' by Vladimir Federov (respondent), was confusingly similar to its registered trademarks, and that the respondent did not have any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. It also argued that the respondent was not making legitimate or fair use of the domains, as two of the sites redirected internet traffic to the respondent's website, and that they were registered in bad faith.
The Panelist found that the respondent's domain names were simple and obvious misspellings of the complainant's trademarks, and concluded that because they redirected internet traffic to the respondent's website, which also offered travel services, the domain names were being used in a similar context. He conducted an aural and visual comparison of the names, and concluded that the domain names were similar enough to the complainant's registered trademarks to be confusingly similar. Additionally, the Panelist found that the respondent had no legitimate interest in the domain names, and that it registered the names for the purpose of diverting internet traffic away from the complainant's website. Hence, the domains names were registered in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panelist ordered that the disputed domain names be transferred to the complainant.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The issue of recording telephone calls was recently considered in the Federal Court in Furnari v Ziegert  FCA 1080.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).