Domain name is being used to
identify the company and/or the trademark. But sometimes, still there are some
people or institutions are trying to gain some benefit from using famous
trademark’s name. It is called cybersquatting. Generally cybersquatting is an
action to use brand name that has been registered to take some benefits. Often,
the aim to use famous brand name are to gather many people visit their website,
sell some products that has not related with the original one, show something
inappropriate and make bad reputation to the original one, etc. Under the name
of the famous and the original brand.
From how the story of
background told about, The Respondent has no right to the mark “Karen Millen’.
Karen Millen is a famous legitimated clothing brand all over the world, and it
also already has its registered domain name. We see in here the reasons why The
Respondent could not have right through the disputed domain name.
First, about the identical.
Disputed domain name contains name of Karen Millen’s brand, where Karen Millen
has registered mark of that brand. It is true that The Respondent is purposefully
made that disputed name in order to making it similar to Karen Millen’s
registered domain name and order to make the customers think that disputed
domain name is an original The Complainant’s domain name. Then, The Respondent
also does not has any related name or something related with the disputed
domain name.
Second, about the damages to
The Complainant’s bussiness. We see that the Respondent has purpose to make the
replica of The Complinant’s product and totally it will make a big loss for The
Complainant. And the fact that there is no connection or relation between The
Complinant with the Respondent. The Complinant never has coorporation with The
Respondent or even want to supply their products to the Respondent.
Third, about bad faith. The
Respondent willing to make a replica of Karen Mllen’s brand and sell it with
cheap price and of course this one is absolutely a bad faith. The Respondent
was registered the disputed domain name which identical with famous brand
deliberately. It will be different if The Respondent make the disputed domain
name with purpose of distribute of Karen Millen’s products and with proper
manner, not bad purposes using The Complinant’s name to gain some benefits.
So, I think the disputed domain
name is not entitled to The Respondent nor The Complainant. Why? For the
Respondent who has no right to the domain name because what already I explained
above. For the Complainant that has no right, it is because there is a
principle in register domain name that is “first come, fist serve” principle.
In here, the Respondent was actually who registered it in first place, so The
Complainant also has no right through this disputed domain name. Better if this
disputed domain name belongs to the
state, it also can be blocked by the state if possible.
