Joint Head of Intellectual Property and Dispute Resolution, Matthew Harris was recently interviewed by Bloomberg BNA about the English High Court’s judgment in Yoyo.email Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc & Ors  EWHC 3509 regarding Yoyo.email’s registration of four domain names.
The interview was prompted by English court’s decision to strike out Yoyo.email’s attempted “appeal” against a 2014 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) decision in which the panel had held the domain names should be transferred to RBS. The court also found in favour of RBS’s counterclaim that by registering those domain names, Yoyo.email was liable to RBS under the English law of passing off.
Matthew told Bloomberg BNA that the High Court’s decision demonstrated that English courts, “are likely to take a robust stance in cases in which a domain name has been intentionally registered because it incorporates the trademark of another person.” He went on to highlight the importance of carefully considering the potential jurisdictional consequences of deciding to initiating proceeding under the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) or UDRP.
Copyright litigation proceedings brought in London’s Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) against John Lewis, and its cartoon dragon ‘Excitable Edgar’, have been dismissed.
Superman is Clark Kent. Batman is Bruce Wayne. And Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, is…Dr Craig Wright (or so he claims).
As AI technology develops, we are now firmly in the age of non-humans authoring literary content which might be worthy of protection under intellectual property laws.
One of the hottest trade mark issues around at the moment is the question of how effectively can trade mark rights protect brand owners’ interests in non-fungible tokens (otherwise known as “NFTs”).