ARTICLE
11 June 2013

Nominet Rule On Use Of Personal Name In .Co.Uk Domains

WB
Wedlake Bell

Contributor

Wedlake Bell logo
We are a contemporary London law firm, rooted in tradition with a lasting legacy of client service. Founded in 1780, we recognise the long-standing relationships we have with our clients and how they have helped shape our past and provide a platform for our future. With 76 partners supported by over 300 lawyers and support staff, we operate on a four practice group model: private client, business services, real estate and dispute resolution. Our driving force is to empower our clients by providing quality legal advice, insight and intelligence that enables them to achieve their goals whether personal or business. We are large enough to advise on the most complex matters, but small enough to ensure that our people and our work remain exceptional and dynamic. Building relationships is at the heart of everything we do.
Few, if any, previous ".co.uk" complaints concerning non-commercial names have been considered by Nominet but a recent complaint by Wedlake Bell provided an opportunity for the Nominet Appeal Panel to consider the issues raised by such a complaint carefully.
United Kingdom Intellectual Property

Few, if any, previous ".co.uk" complaints concerning non-commercial names have been considered by Nominet (the .co.uk domain name registry) but a recent complaint by Wedlake Bell provided an opportunity for the Nominet Appeal Panel to consider the issues raised by such a complaint carefully.

In its decision, the Appeal Panel (Nominet's highest tribunal) carried out a comprehensive review of the Nominet policy and its implications in this area. It concluded that an individual had rights under the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act to satisfy the first requirement under the Nominet policy that enforceable "rights" relating to her name existed.

In the past, most (if not all) domain name complaints have involved trade marks or trade names which enjoyed clear commercial value; but this case involved the name of a private individual. The Expert who had considered the complaint at first instance had concluded that the individual did not have enforceable rights in her name to satisfy the first requirement under the Nominet policy - so the Appeal Panel's ruling (reversing that aspect of the Expert's ruling) that an individual does enjoy enforceable rights in her name under the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act to satisfy this first requirement is significant.

Once that first requirement of having rights had been established, the next question was to decide was whether or not the registration was abusive – a test which has commonly been decided by Nominet experts in the past. In this particular case the Panel found that the registration was abusive on the facts and ordered the domain name to be transferred to the complainant.

This decision by the Panel provides a good deal of clarity and general guidance on the extent to which individuals may be able to prevent abuse of their names by rogue registrants of domain names with Nominet and is an important development in this area – which is to be welcomed.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More