The appeal by One in a Million to the Court of Appeal against the domain name decision we reported on earlier this year was decided last week.

To recap, One in a Million (and others) registered a number of domain names incorporating or using parts of the names of famous companies, including Marks & Spencer. Apparently, they had done this with a view to selling the domain names to the companies concerned.

In response the companies had applied for, and obtained, injunctions requiring One in a Million to assign the domain names to them (for nothing). The Court of Appeal categorically turned down One in a Million's appeal, thereby upholding the original decision.

Neither the first decision or the decision of the Court of Appeal is unduly surprising, as there was clear evidence that One in a Million had intended to use the fact that it had registered the domain names first to extract money from the relevant companies. Nevertheless, the decision is of significance and should prove a considerable deterrent to others looking to follow in the footsteps of One in a Million.

In our report "Whose domain is it anyway? - A report on the recent One in a Million domain name case" (which can be found on this service) we set out in detail the facts of the case and the reasons for the original decision.

This bulletin is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. It is, however, written as a general guide; it is essential that relevant professional advice is sought before any specific action is taken.

Garretts is a member of the international network of law firms associated with Arthur Andersen and is regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of investment business.