Transfer or cancellationProcedure
What is the typical format for a cancellation or transfer action in court litigation (domains registered in either a ccTLD or a gTLD) and through ADR (ccTLD only)?
ADR: Nominet’s DRS
Nominet has been providing a dispute resolution service to resolve .uk domain name disputes since 2001. Nominet’s DRS Policy (version 4) applies to all disputes filed on or after 1 October 2016. There were 671 DRS complaints in 2018. It should be noted that domain name disputes involving domain name registrations under new gTLDs administered by Nominet, such as .wales and .cymru, are subject to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) or the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); thus Nominet’s DRS Policy does not apply to the new gTLDs administered by Nominet.
Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the DRS Policy, Nominet will order the transfer or cancellation of a .uk domain name provided the complainant demonstrates that he, she or it has rights in respect of a name or mark that is identical or similar to the domain name; and the domain name, in the hands of the respondent, is an ‘abusive registration’.
Rights, as defined in paragraph 1 of the DRS Policy, mean rights enforceable under English law or otherwise, and may include rights in descriptive terms that have acquired a ‘secondary meaning’. Thus, rights are broadly defined to include not only trademark rights, whether registered or unregistered, but other rights such as contractual rights or personality rights. Furthermore, there are no geographical or jurisdictional restrictions with regard to ‘rights’ (paragraph 1.5 of the Experts’ Overview). However, the mere registration of a company name at Companies House does not in and of itself give rise to any ‘rights’ within the meaning of the DRS Policy (paragraph 1.7 of the Experts’ Overview). Neither will a trademark application in and of itself, without evidence of unregistered rights, give rise to rights for the purpose of the DRS Policy.
This first requirement is therefore essentially a low threshold test designed to determine whether a complainant has standing to bring a complaint. However, if the right is disputed or the surrounding circumstances are particularly complex, the complaint may be rejected for ‘not being appropriate for adjudication under the Policy’ (paragraph 1.6 Experts’ Overview and DRS 04632 (ireland.co.uk)).
As regards the identity or similarity test, the wording of the DRS Policy is considerably broader than that of the UDRP (which refers to ‘confusing similarity’). Like the UDRP, if the complainant’s trademark is a word trademark (as opposed to a figurative trademark), the identity or similarity test is usually straightforward. For the purpose of this test, hyphens or the addition of generic or descriptive terms are generally insufficient to distinguish a trademark from a domain name (paragraph 2.3 of the Experts’ Overview). It is also a well-accepted practice that the suffix, such as .co.uk, is irrelevant for the purpose of this test.
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the DRS Policy, ‘abusive registration’ means a domain name that either:
- was registered or otherwise acquired in a manner that, at the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the complainant’s rights; or
- has been used in a manner that has taken unfair advantage of or has been unfairly detrimental to the complainant’s rights.
Thus the DRS Policy, unlike the UDRP, does not require that both the registration and use of the domain name be unfair; but that their registration or use be unfair. Therefore, the DRS Policy would cover situations in which it is clear that the registration was ‘fair’ but the subsequent use of the domain name becomes ‘unfair’.
The DRS Policy provides a list of examples of what may constitute ‘abusive registration’. Paragraph 5.1.1 sets out examples that involve the registrant’s intention for registering the domain name: the respondent registered (or otherwise acquired) the domain name primarily:
- for the purposes of selling or renting it to the complainant (or a competitor), for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs;
- as a blocking registration against a name or mark in which the complainant has rights; or
- for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the business of the complainant.
The following circumstances are also indicative of ‘abuse’:
- the respondent is using or threatening to use the domain name to cause confusion among internet users so as to mislead them into believing that the domain name is connected with the complainant (paragraph 5.1.2 of the DRS Policy; see also Nominet DRS7539 (edusafe.co.uk) and DRS9108 (michelinstar.co.uk) for more on threatened abuse);
- the respondent is engaged in a pattern of infringing domain name registrations of well-known names or trademarks (whether under .uk or otherwise) (paragraph 5.1.3 of the DRS Policy and paragraph 3.5 of the Experts’ Overview); or
- the respondent has provided false contact details to Nominet (paragraph 5.1.4 of the DRS Policy).
Awareness of a complainant’s rights is generally indicative of abusive registration of a domain name under the DRS Policy (DRS 4331 (verbatim.co.uk)).
A distinctive feature of the DRS Policy is that it includes a provision uncommon in other ADRs that addresses abusive registration of domain names as a result of a relationship, such as that between an employer and an employee, a common source of domain name conflict (paragraph 5.1.5 of the DRS Policy). In such cases, the complainant must satisfy two requirements: it must have been using the domain name registration exclusively; and paid for the registration or renewal of the domain name registration.
The DRS Policy also expressly provides that there is a rebuttable presumption of abusive registration where a respondent is found to have made an abusive registration in three or more DRS cases within two years before the filing of the complaint at issue (paragraph 5.3 of the DRS Policy).
Finally, the DRS Policy expressly provides that failure on the respondent’s part to use the domain name (for the purposes of email or a website) is not in itself evidence of abusive registration. However, in certain circumstances, such as when a brand is well-known and there is no apparent legitimate reason for the domain name registration, non-use of a domain name may be indicative of a ‘threatened abuse hanging over the head of the complainant’ (see paragraph 1.3 of the Experts’ Overview and DRS0658 (chivasbrothers.co.uk)).
The DRS Policy (paragraph 8), also sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors that may be evidence that the domain name is not an abusive registration, including:
- before being aware of the complainant’s cause for complaint, the respondent has:
- used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name in connection with a genuine offering of goods or services;
- been commonly known by the name or legitimately connected with a mark that is identical or similar to the domain name; or
- made legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name;
- the domain name is generic or descriptive and the respondent is making fair use of it;
- if the domain name was registered as a result of the relationship between the complainant and the respondent, the respondent’s holding of the domain is consistent with an express term of a written agreement between the parties; or
- the domain name is not part of a wider pattern or series of registrations because the domain name is of a significantly different type or character to the other domain names registered by the respondent.
In addition, the following may be considered legitimate uses of a domain name:
- fair use (including sites operated solely in tribute to or in criticism of a person or business);
- trading in domain names for profit, and holding a large portfolio of domain names; or
- sale of traffic (for example, pointing domain names to parking pages and earning click-per-view revenue), depending on the nature of the domain name; the nature of the advertising links on any parking page associated with the domain name; and that the use of the domain name is ultimately the respondent’s responsibility.
The Nominet DRS procedure involves an informal mediation phase following receipt of the parties’ submissions (paragraph 10 of the DRS Policy). If the parties are unable to reach an agreement and if the respondent submits a response, Nominet will proceed to appoint an expert for a full decision, upon payment of the applicable fees by the complainant. However, if the complainant fails to pay such fees, the respondent may opt to pay the fees him or herself to obtain a decision, which is rare (see, for example, DRS 11872 (a1furniture.co.uk)). Otherwise, the complaint will be deemed withdrawn.
If a respondent fails to submit a response, the complainant may apply for a summary decision (paragraph 12 of the DRS Policy). In the case of a summary decision, the expert is not required to write a full decision but only to certify whether the complainant has rights and whether there has been an abusive registration.
Both full decisions and summary decisions are decided by a single expert (contrary to appeal cases within the DRS that are decided by a three-member panel).
In the United Kingdom, domain name disputes are mainly decided by courts on the basis of trademark infringement, the common law tort of passing off, or both.
Registered trademark rights are protected against infringement under section 10 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (implementing European Directive No. 89/104/EEC), which allows the owner of a registered trademark to prevent a third party from using in the course of trade:
- a sign that is identical to the trademark in connection with identical goods or services for which the mark is registered;
- a sign that is identical to the trademark in connection with goods or services similar to those for which the trademark is registered; or a sign that is similar to the trademark in connection with identical or similar goods or services for which the trademark is registered and there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the trademark; or
- a sign that is identical or similar to the trademark in connection with goods or services that are not similar to those for which the trademark is registered, where the trademark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign, being without cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trademark.
Furthermore, unregistered trademark rights are protected under the common law tort of passing off. To be able to succeed in an action for passing off, a claimant must demonstrate the following three requirements:
- goodwill or reputation attached to the supplied goods or services associated with the trademark;
- a misrepresentation by the defendant to the public leading or likely to lead the public to believe that the goods or services offered by the defendant are the goods or services of the claimant; and
- damage, or a likelihood thereof, resulting from said misrepresentation.
The main difficulty in resolving domain name disputes based on trademark infringement stems from the ‘use in the course of trade’ requirement. However, the English courts have found that the mere registration of a domain name can constitute trademark infringement and passing off, in spite of a defendant’s non-use of the domain name. In this regard, the landmark domain name decision is British Telecommunications plc v One in a Million Ltd , which involved the registration of several domain names identically reproducing well-known trademarks, including britishtelecom.com, virgin.org and marksandspencer.com, which were not actively pointing but were registered by the registrants with the intention to sell them to the trademark owners. This is the leading case on trademark infringement and passing off in the context of domain names in the UK, and stated that the registration of a unique and distinctive name that is a registered trademark in itself amounts to trademark infringement and passing off. Despite its being nearly 20 years old, One in a Million continues to be applied regularly in the English courts. See, for example, Future Publishing Ltd v Edge Interactive Media Inc , Ross v Playboy Enterprises International Inc  EWHC 1379 and the recent case of Azumi Ltd v Zuma’s Choice Pet Products Ltd  EWHC 609.
Before commencing a legal action for trademark infringement or passing off, the parties involved must attempt to settle their dispute outside the courtroom.
Trademark infringement or passing-off actions are commenced in the Chancery Division of the High Court or in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC, formerly the Patents County Court) with the issue of a claim form that sets out the claim and relief sought. The claim form is then served on the defendant and the particulars of the claim must be contained in or served with the claim form or subsequently be served on the defendant within 14 days after service of the claim form (Rule 7.4 Civil Procedure Rules). The defendant may then serve a defence, including any counterclaims, and the claimant then has the opportunity to serve a reply to the defendant’s defence, as well as (if applicable) a defence to the counterclaims. Following this there is the disclosure process, the exchange of witness statements and, if a party relies on an expert witness, expert evidence. The case then will proceed to trial.Choosing a forum
What are the pros and cons of litigation and ADR in domain name disputes? What are the pros and cons of choosing a local forum to litigate a gTLD dispute compared with the ICANN ADR format for the gTLD?
The advantages of resolving domain name disputes through ADR proceedings, such as the UDRP or Nominet’s DRS, is that both provide a fast and inexpensive alternative to court proceedings. In addition, Nominet’s informal mediation proceeding, which is uncommon in other domain name ADR, is particularly effective. Further, both Nominet and the UDRP have built-in mechanisms that allow complainants to overcome jurisdictional issues that often prove difficult within local forum litigation (as many registrants are often located outside the jurisdiction of the complainant).
However, some domain name disputes are better suited for the courts to decide, particularly cases involving more complex issues arising from trademark or contract law or where the aggrieved party would like to seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages or legal fees (none of which are available under ADR proceedings such as Nominet or the UDRP).Appeal
What avenues of appeal are available?
Unlike other domain name ADR proceedings, Nominet gives the losing party the possibility to appeal an expert’s decision before a panel composed of three experts (paragraph 20 of the DRS Policy).
To appeal a DRS decision, the losing party must submit within 10 days of the date of notification of the decision either a statement of intention to appeal (and a non-refundable deposit), which must be followed within 15 days by an appeal notice; or an appeal notice (and applicable fees), explaining the reasons for the appeal.
Nominet will forward the statement of intention to appeal or appeal notice to the other party within three days of receipt. The other party will then have 10 days from the date of receipt of the appeal notice to submit a response (not exceeding 100 words) specifying the reasons why the appeal should be rejected. The submissions by either party should not contain new evidence or annexes and the appeal panel should not take into consideration any new evidence unless it deems that it is in the interest of justice to do so.
Upon receipt of the appeal response or the expiry of the 10-day period to file it Nominet will proceed to appoint a three-member panel (composed of the chair of the group of experts and the next available two members appointed by rotation), who must deliver a decision within 30 days.
Nominet’s decisions are not subject to review by a court (see Michael Toth v Emirates  EWPCC 18). However, the DRS policy does not prevent either the complainant or the respondent from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of, for example, trademark infringement or passing off (paragraph 20.13 of the DRS Policy).
A complainant may also opt to refile a complaint, pursuant to paragraph 21.2 of the DRS Policy; in this regard, the DRS Policy provides that the expert shall consider the following:
- whether the complainant, the respondent and the domain name in issue are the same as in the earlier case;
- whether the substance of the complaint relates to acts that occurred before or after the close of submissions in the earlier case;
- whether, in the event the substance of the complaint relates to acts that occurred before the close of submissions in the earlier case, there are any exceptional grounds for the rehearing or reconsideration; and
- whether the acts on which the refiled complaint is based are substantially the same as the acts on which the previous complaint was based.
The following are examples that may be sufficient to justify a rehearing (paragraph 21.3 of the DRS Policy):
- serious misconduct on the part of the expert, a party, witness or lawyer;
- submission of false evidence to the expert;
- the discovery of evidence that could not have been reasonably foreseen or known for the complainant to have included it in support of the earlier complaint;
- a breach of natural justice; and
- the avoidance of an unconscionable result.
The Court of Appeal, which is based in London (at the Royal Courts of Justice), hears appeals from the High Court. To appeal a judgment, permission must be sought from the lower court or the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court hears appeals from the Court of Appeal. Appeals may only be brought with the permission of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court if the permission is refused by the Court of Appeal. Permission will be granted only if there is an alleged error of law on the part of the lower court or a point of general public importance involved that ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.Who may claim
Who is entitled to seek a remedy and under what conditions?
Under the DRS Policy, any person or entity may submit a complaint. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the DRS Policy, to be entitled to seek a remedy, a complainant must have rights that are enforceable under English law or otherwise, which include not only trademark rights (registered or unregistered) but also contractual rights, personality rights or other rights. If the rights on which a complaint has relied have been licensed, depending on the circumstances of the case, both the licensor and licensee should appear as complainants (see Experts’ Overview, 1.1(b), Nominet DRS No. 2120 (orbaoriginals.co.uk) and DRS10862 (theempire.co.uk)).
Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, an action for trademark infringement is actionable by the proprietor of the trademark (section 14). If the mark is co-owned, proceedings can be brought by any of the proprietors but in order to proceed, all the co-owners of the mark must be joined in the proceedings, unless the court authorises otherwise. In certain circumstances exclusive (section 31) or non-exclusive (section 30) licensees may also bring actions for trademark infringement.Who acts as defendant
Who may act as defendant in an action to cancel or transfer a gTLD in local courts?
An action to obtain the cancellation or transfer of a domain name through courts is often brought against the registrant but nothing prevents a party from bringing an action against the registry or the registrar. Indeed, while Nominet’s Terms and Conditions expressly exclude and limit Nominet’s liability (condition 12), an action can be brought against Nominet in its capacity as registry of the .uk TLD. In this regard, see Michael Toth v Emirates and Nominet UK  EWHC 517 (in which the judge on appeal overturned the decision of the Patents County Court that the decisions of a Nominet-appointed expert or appeal panel in .uk domain name disputes were subject to review by a court), Pitman Training Ltd v Nominet UK  FSR 797 and Alliance Française de Londres Ltd v Nominet UK  EWHC 3049 (Ch) on a different point, namely an application brought by Alliance Française that the court order an injunction to prevent Nominet from cancelling a domain name once it was up for renewal. In November 2013, Cartier International AG, the luxury jewellery maker, successfully brought an action against Nominet in its capacity as registry for .uk before the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, seeking an injunction to require Nominet to ‘remove from its domain name registry (de-tag and lock) various domain names that resolve to websites that infringe the claimant’s CARTIER mark’.Burden of proof
What is the burden of proof to establish infringement and obtain a remedy?
The burden of proof to establish ‘abusive registration’ and obtain a remedy under the DRS Policy is ‘on the balance of probabilities’ (paragraph 2.2), which is the same standard required in civil court proceedings for trademark infringement or passing-off actions. However, the greater the severity of an allegation, the more evidence the expert will require (see paragraph 2.1 of the Experts’ Overview).Remedies
What remedies are available to a successful party in an infringement action?
Remedies available to a party in a trademark infringement or passing-off action include but are not limited to injunctive relief (interim or final), damages or account of profits, costs and the cancellation or transfer of a domain name (section 14(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994). Website blocking injunctions may also be available (see question 18).Injunctive relief
Is injunctive relief available, preliminarily or permanently, and in what circumstances and under what conditions?
Injunctive relief, preliminarily or permanently, is available as prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules. A preliminary or interim injunction may be sought where the matter is urgent and may cause irreparable harm to the applicant if the injunction is not granted. In cases of extreme urgency, an interim injunction may be sought without notice to the other party. The court will take into consideration the ‘balance of convenience’ between the damage caused to the applicant if the injunction is not granted and the damage that could be suffered by the respondent if it is granted. If the applicant prevails at trial then the interim injunction may become permanent.
A permanent injunction can also be granted where the court has found trademark infringement or passing off (British Telecom-munications plc v One in a Million). The court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction in order to prevent fraudulent use of the trademark in a domain name or transfer of the domain name to a third party.
The English courts have stated that where trademark infringement is found online, the remedy of website blocking injunctions can be granted (Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd  EWHC 3354 - known as ‘Cartier I’). This decision was appealed and heard by the Court of Appeal, which issued a judgment upholding the High Court decision on 6 July 2016 (and in the intervening period the High Court issued another judgment in a second Cartier case (Cartier and Another v BSkyB and Others  EWHC 339 (Ch) (known as ‘Cartier II’) following the principles set out in Cartier I, notwithstanding the then-pending appeal). In an appeal to the Supreme Court in Cartier I on the issue of costs for intermediary injunctions, the Court held that the costs attributable to the implementation of a particular website blocking injunction should be borne by the right holder (ie, Cartier) rather than the internet service provider. These injunctions force the relevant internet service provider to prevent the public from accessing the website; they do not force the removal or transfer of ownership of the infringing domain name (previously, this remedy was only possible for copyright infringement). Note that while the Cartier case concerned infringement of a trademark on a website, given that the court in One in a Million held that trademark infringement can occur through use of domain names, the principle and remedy ought to equally apply to infringement through use of domain names.Calculating damages
How is monetary relief calculated?
In domain name litigation, damages are generally calculated on the basis of the same principle as any other infringement action: the aggrieved party must be put in the same position as if the tort had not taken place (ie, as if the defendant in the domain name litigation had not registered the disputed domain name).Criminal remedies
What criminal remedies exist, if any?
There are no criminal sanctions for domain squatting per se. However, the Trade Marks Act 1994 sets out criminal offences in relation to the unauthorised use of trademarks in relation to counterfeiting activity (section 92), making a false entry in the register of trademarks (section 94), falsely representing that a mark is a registered trademark by using the word ‘registered’ or any other word or symbol indicating a reference to registration (section 95), among others. Thus criminal sanctions would come into play where a domain name is being used for any of the above. Accordingly, for example, using a domain name to point to a website that facilitates counterfeiting activity would be actionable in the courts under section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. In this regard, criminal sanctions under section 92 include imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine, or both; or a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both.
The court may also make orders for forfeiture and confiscation orders under proceeds of crime legislation (R v H Sheikh and Others  EWCA (Crim) 429).Limitation period
Is there a time frame within which an action must be initiated?
An action for trademark infringement or passing off may be barred if it is not commenced within six years of the wrongful act.
Under the DRS Policy, like the UDRP, the doctrine of laches that would prevent a complainant for bringing a complaint for undue delay does not apply (D00010948 (gillinghamfc.co.uk) and D00013531 (heraklith.co.uk)).Expiry of rights and estoppel
Can a registrant’s rights in a domain name expire because of non-use. Can a registrant be estopped from bringing an infringement action? In what circumstances?
Nominet’s Terms and Conditions do not impose a use requirement to maintain the validity of a .uk domain name registration. Thus a registrant’s rights in a domain name will not expire for non-use. However, non-use of a domain name, in certain circumstances, may be considered an indication of abusive intent under the DRS Policy (paragraph 3.7 of the Experts’ Overview), although, as previously mentioned, the DRS Policy expressly provides that failure to use a domain name (for the purposes of email or a website) is not in itself evidence of ‘abusive registration’ (paragraph 5.2 of the DRS Policy).
Under UK trademark law, a trademark owner can be estopped from bringing an infringement action if he or she has acquiesced for a continuous period of five years the use of a later registered trademark in the UK, unless the registration of the later trademark was in bad faith (section 48 of the Trade Marks Act 1994). This provision may be relevant where a domain name consists of a registered trademark: the owner of the earlier trademark may be estopped from preventing use of the later registered trademark as a domain name where the owner of the earlier trademark was aware of such use and acquiesced for a continuous period of five years. The doctrine of estoppel also applies: waiver by estoppel may prevent a party from bringing an infringement action where such party, believing itself to have a right to a domain name, does not exercise its right and its conduct objectively indicates an intention not to enforce a right, namely, the use of the domain name in question.
Furthermore, under section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, the registration of a trademark may be revoked on one or more of a number of listed grounds, including that the mark has not been used for five years and there are no proper reasons for non-use; or in consequence of the acts or inactivity of the trademark proprietor, it has become the common name in the trade for a product or service for which it is registered. If any of these grounds is upheld, the proprietor can be estopped from bringing an infringement claim against a domain name owner as there is no longer a valid trademark to be infringed.
In addition, the doctrine of laches may also prevent a trademark holder from bringing an infringement action for unreasonable delay in the context of court litigation. However, as previously mentioned, such doctrine is generally not applicable in Nominet’s ADR or the UDRP (D00010948 (gillinghamfc.co.uk) and D00013531 (heraklith.co.uk)).Time frame for actions
What is the typical time frame for an infringement action at first instance and on appeal?
The average time frame for resolution of Nominet DRS cases is around six to eight weeks (although some cases have been resolved in a matter of hours while others have taken a number of months), while court proceedings naturally take much longer depending on the complexity of the case.
The time frame for an infringement action in the English courts will vary according to a number of factors, including the complexity of the issues, the number of experts and witnesses involved, the number of interim applications made and the anticipated length of trial required.
Infringement actions can be heard in the IPEC or the High Court. In general terms, an action that is to be heard in the IPEC will take around 12 months from the issue of the particulars of claim to the trial. An action that is to be heard in the High Court is likely to take a minimum of 18 months to reach trial once the particulars of claim have been issued. An appeal to the Court of Appeal may take around a year, a further appeal to the Supreme Court another year to two years, and if a reference on a point of law to the Court of Justice of the European Union were to be required (from any of the aforementioned courts), this would add two to three additional years.Case law
Is a case law overview available on procedural or substantive issues? Does the case law have a precedential value?
Nominet provides an Experts’ Overview on both procedural and substantive issues with the purpose of assisting participants in domain name disputes under the DRS Policy. It provides an overview of common procedural and substantive issues, including reference to prior DRS decisions, and the consensus view of Nominet experts. In addition, Nominet also provides a decision search tool on its website.
Nominet DRS decisions are not binding and so decisions do not have precedential value (paragraph 20.12 of the DRS Policy). However, prior DRS decisions are persuasive, particularly appeal decisions.
While there are similarities between the DRS Policy and the UDRP, both policies differ considerably in various aspects and so citing UDRP precedents in a dispute under the DRS Policy may not be particularly helpful.Appointment of panellists
Can parties choose a panellist in an ADR procedure involving a ccTLD? Can they oppose an appointment?
Nominet appoints panellists (referred to as experts) on a rotational basis from a list of experts it maintains (available on Nominet’s website). Thus parties are unable to choose or participate in the selection process of a panellist involving .uk TLD domain name disputes under the DRS Policy.
The DRS Policy expressly provides that ‘the expert shall be impartial and independent’ and before or during the proceeding, the expert must disclose to Nominet ‘any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubt as to his or her impartiality or independence’ (paragraph 15.1 of the DRS Policy). Accordingly, before accepting an invitation to adjudicate a dispute, the expert is required to sign a declaration certifying his or her impartiality and independence. Nominet has the discretion to appoint a substitute expert if necessary (paragraph 15.1 of the DRS Policy).
While the DRS Policy does not expressly provide that a party can oppose an appointment, nothing in the DRS Policy prevents a party from raising a partiality concern before Nominet. Nominet has received very few allegations of partiality against the appointment of an expert and none of them have warranted recusal of an expert.Costs
What is the typical range of costs associated with an infringement action, including pre-litigation procedures, trial or ADR, and appeal? Can these costs be recovered?
The applicable fees for Nominet’s dispute resolution service are regulated in paragraph 22 of the DRS Policy.
There are no fees for Nominet’s informal mediation process or administrative services (including filing a complaint, a response, reply or non-standard submissions).
The applicable fee for a summary decision is £200 excluding VAT for disputes involving one to five domain names and one complainant. For disputes involving six or more domain names or more than one complainant, the fee will be determined in consultation with the expert.
The applicable fee for a full decision under the DRS is £750 excluding VAT for disputes involving one to five domain names and only one complainant. For disputes involving six or more domain names or more than one complainant, the fee will be determined in consultation with the expert.
As a general rule, the complainant is responsible for paying the applicable fees set out above. However, if the complainant fails to submit payment within 10 days of receipt of notice of the expert’s appointment, the complaint will be deemed withdrawn, unless the respondent chooses to pay for a decision (paragraphs 12.2 and 13.2 of the DRS Policy).
The applicable fees for the submission of an appeal are £3,000 excluding VAT.
There may be additional fees in exceptional circumstances (for example, if an in-person hearing is held).
These fees do not include counsel’s fees.
Recovery of costs is not available under Nominet’s DRS.
Costs for bringing a trademark infringement or passing-off actions before the English courts vary depending on numerous factors, but are without doubt considerably higher than Nominet’s ADR proceeding. The following are approximate costs for various stages of formal legal proceedings.
In the pre-litigation phase, costs for filing an action in the IPEC are approximately £15,000, while in the High Court they are approximately £10,000. The cost for preparing an interim injunction can range between £10,000 and £20,000. An application for summary judgment can also exceed £10,000. The cost for preparing an application for default judgment would be around £10,000. These estimates include counsel’s fees.
Costs for a trademark infringement action in the High Court from issue of proceedings to the trial hearing could be as high as £300,000, subject to a number of variables specific to the case. In the IPEC, the likely cost of such an action from the issue of proceedings to trial would be in the region of £150,000.
In the IPEC costs are subject to a cap, with a £50,000 cap on recoverability of costs and a £500,000 cap on damages or an account of profits. There are no such caps in the High Court. However, the IPEC tends to be more expensive than the High Court for early-stage proceedings as the work (and therefore cost) is very front-loaded, although this can be an incentive to encourage early settlement.
On appeal, costs may vary depending on the number and complexity of the issues, but costs are likely to exceed £200,000.
If a dispute is settled out of court, it is open to the parties involved to agree who should bear the costs of the dispute. If the parties cannot agree the amount of costs to be paid, they can issue ‘costs-only’ proceedings to obtain an order for costs from the court.
If a dispute is not settled and goes to court, the court can decide in its discretion how the costs are to be paid. Costs of formal proceedings are recoverable in principle by the successful party from the unsuccessful party. The amount of costs to be paid is subject to a process called ‘assessment’, and is subject to numerous rules on what type of costs are recoverable, depending on the conduct of the parties, the outcome of the dispute and any offers to be settled during the course of proceedings. Generally, only the costs of legal work that are reasonably incurred, reasonable in amount and proportionate to the matters in issue will be recoverable from the losing side (the ‘standard’ basis for assessment). The principle of proportionality is key in English litigation, and the courts are keen to ensure that parties keep the costs of proceedings down. In rare cases where there is some element of culpability or abuse on the part of the paying party, the onus will be on the paying party to show that the receiving party’s costs are disproportionate (the ‘indemnity’ basis for assessment), and inevitably higher costs are recoverable.
Typically in English proceedings, about 60 per cent of costs are recoverable from the paying party. On occasion, the English courts have demonstrated a willingness to grant higher costs orders, and there have been cases where 100 per cent of costs have been ordered (although these are uncommon).