M/s Skrine (the Complainant), a Malaysian law firm, recently recovered the domain name skrine.com through WIPO's internet domain name process. The Complainant relied on its substantial goodwill and reputation in the name Skrine, by virtue of long establishment and broad client base, and argued that the domain name skrine.com incorporates the use of the words and/or name "Skrine" which is identical and confusingly similar to its tradename or service mark.

Evidence was given that the Respondents had provided fictitious registration details (the address of Dong Guan City in China a non-existent place), registered domain names, inter alia, amongst others, names of famous Malaysian law firms and Public Listed Companies and asked for payment from the Complainant for the transfer of the domain name. Accordingly the Respondents had immense difficulty justifying that its activities were in the interest of promoting top level domain names and legitimate.

The Panel in the dispute found that:

  • the name Skrine of the Complainant and the impugned domain name skrine.com by the Respondent is identical and confusingly similar.
  • The Complainants have legitimate rights and interest in the name Skrine, whereas the Respondents do not.
  • The Respondents’ bad faith is satisfied by the fact that they admitted to requesting for payment from the Complainant for the transfer of the domain name as well as not addressing the issue of their alleged registration of various other domain names.

Accordingly the transfer of the name to the Complainant was ordered.

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