Complaint for digitalceramic.com denied at WIPO

[OnlineDomainCom]

The Complaint for the disputed domain name digitalceramic.com was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 13, 2012.

The Complainant was Digital Ceramic Systems Limited of Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England and The Respondent was Baltea SRL of Leini, Italy.

The Domain Name digitalceramic.com was registered on January 31, 2005.

Read here more...

 

[domainhacks-931385]

"The mere fact that the Complainant’s trademark is going to be registered in a few months, if ever, would have made it impossible for the Panelist to find bad faith registration for a domain name registered 7 years before that trademark."

I disagree with this statement.

Actually I think DigitalCeramic would have won the case if they waited after trademark issuance and a few years to file the WIPO.
The case would then be a well established company with a well known trademark vs a domain opportunist who happened to register the name before the company inception. No contest imo, the company however made a mistake of filling for WIPO before trademark issuance, and before they were well recognized.

 

[Keith]

I disagree with this statement.

Actually I think DigitalCeramic would have won the case if they waited after trademark issuance and a few years to file the WIPO

I disagree.

A TM doesn't mean you're well known. This new company is grasping at straws and needs to pay handsomely if they want a domain which was registered long before they formed their business. .

 

[domainhacks-931385]

I disagree.

A TM doesn't mean you're well known. This new company is grasping at straws and needs to pay handsomely if they want a domain which was registered long before they formed their business. .

Right, which is what i said. If the company waited for TM issuance, and then spent a few years establishing their trademark, they would easily win this case. However, their impatience is the reason they lost, not because some opportunist registered their domain before company inception.That has absolutely no basis for the decision.

 

[alien51]

not because some opportunist registered their domain before company inception.

How on earth could anyone preempt that a famous company some time in the distant future, will use the domain i already own now ?!

Doesn't make any sense to me. Unless you could post here example WIPO decisions already made in the past, which are exactly the same as the issue here.

 

[Kenny]

https://www.duedil.com/company/04021149/digital-ceramic-systems-limited

It seems they own the plural:

Digital Ceramic Systems LimitedEdit details
Company Number: 04021149
Company Type: Private limited with Share Capital
SIC Code: 2625, Manufacture of Other Ceramic Products
Website: http://digitalceramics.com.
Inc Date: 26 Jun 2000
Annual Returns: 26 Jun 2011
Annual Accounts: 30 Jun 2011

Also:

Company Story:

Digital Ceramic Systems Limited was incorporated on 26 Jun 2000 and is located in Staffordshire. The company's status is active, with a team of 3 directors. As far as we know Digital Ceramic Systems Limited is not currently involved in any litigation proceedings. They have no known group companies. Digital Ceramic Systems Limited is split between 4 shareholders. Digital Ceramic Systems Limited have total assets of £72,015 plus total liabilities of £112,746. They owe £76,414 to creditors and are due £31,481 from trade debtors. As of their last financial statement, they had £11,286 in cash reserves. Their net worth is £-6,228, and the value of their shareholders' interest is £-6,228.

Or so the story goes...

The Domain Name digitalceramic.com was registered on January 31, 2005.


Peace,
Cyberian

 

[OnlineDomainCom]

"Nevertheless, it may be noted that the Panel had substantial doubts as if all other requirements foreseen in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy would have been fulfilled."

Complainant was in Great Britain. Respondent was in Italy.
Complainant had to prove that it had common law rights and that the mark was famous AND known in Italy.

---------- Post added at 02:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 AM ----------

Also if you visited the 2 websites you would see that both are legitimate companies.
So this was actually a clear RDNH case.