Panel’s harsh decision on English complainant

Although UDRP procedures are the benchmark of professionalism in the industry. Every once in a while a dispute decision surfaces that appear a little partial towards one party.

Flexspace No 2 LLP is a company that provides services in relation to flexible offices, workshops, industrial and self-storage spaces. The company was however disturbed by the registration and use of the domain name and hence filed a complaint in WIPO.

The complainant owned the trademarks over FLEXSPACE that included the UK and EU trademarks registered in February 2018 and December 2017 respectively. However, the disputed domain name was registered in August 2021.

The disputed domain name was resolved to a Danish website offering flexible office solutions in Denmark. The complainant claimed this as a violation of its trademark and demanded the domain name be transferred. The respondent did not submit a response.

The panel noted that although the complainant has trademark rights over the term, the domain name in question consists of two generic terms ‘Flex’ and ‘Space’. The respondent must have registered the domain name owing to this generic nature. The panel thus, denied the complaint.

A dissatisfaction did occur while studying this case. In my personal opinion, the complainant here had a stronger case. The complainant clearly had established trademark rights over the terms involved. The terms involved were confusingly similar and the disputed domain name was offering services similar to the complainant.

According to me all the three criteria were met and the domain name could have been transferred. While saying this I mean no disrespect to the amazing dispute resolution procedure and panel.

You can read the article in full detail here.


Join the Discussion

Discover more from Domain Magazine

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Verified by ExactMetrics