Automated Summary
Key Facts
The dispute involves Welfare Call (LAC) LTD, a provider of support services for looked-after children, and ecare Solutions. The Complainant claimed rights to the domain name 'welfarecall.co.uk' under the WELFARE CALL trademark, which was registered in 2015. The Respondent, operating as a competitor via eGov Digital Ltd, registered the domain in 2015 to redirect traffic to their own website (www.epep.tv), causing confusion with the Complainant's established services. The expert found the domain's registration and use to be abusive, as it blocked the Complainant's access, disrupted business, and misleadingly suggested a commercial connection to the Complainant. The decision, dated 17 February 2016, ordered the domain's transfer to the Complainant.
Issues
- The second issue centers on the Respondent's use of the Domain Name to redirect traffic to a competing website, creating confusion among clients. The Expert concluded that the registration and use of the Domain Name were abusive as they unfairly disrupted the Complainant's business and falsely implied a connection to the Complainant's established brand. The Respondent's failure to demonstrate legitimate use under Paragraph 3a of the Policy further supports this finding.
- The first issue is whether the Complainant, Welfare Call (LAC) LTD, has established rights in the name or mark 'WELFARE CALL' as required by Paragraph 2a.i. of the Policy. The second issue is whether the Domain Name 'welfarecall.co.uk' was registered or used in a manner that constitutes an abusive registration under Paragraph 1 of the Policy, specifically if it was acquired to block the Complainant's access to the domain or disrupt its business. The Expert determined both conditions were met, finding the Domain Name identical to the Complainant's mark and its use misleading and detrimental.
Holdings
- The Respondent's registration and use of 'welfarecall.co.uk' constitutes abusive registration under the Policy, as it was used to disrupt the Complainant's business, intercept misdirected traffic, and falsely suggest a commercial connection with the Complainant's services. The domain redirects to a competing service (ePEP) operated by eGov Digital Ltd, with no legitimate use of 'WELFARE CALL' in the Respondent's offerings.
- The Expert orders the transfer of 'welfarecall.co.uk' to the Complainant, concluding the Respondent's actions met the Policy's criteria for abusive registration. The decision was dated 17 February 2016.
- The Complainant has established rights in the name and mark 'WELFARE CALL' through ongoing trading since 2009 and a UK trade mark registration (No. 3104111) filed on 15 April 2015, prior to the Respondent's domain registration on 7 June 2015.
Remedies
The domain name welfarecall.co.uk is to be transferred to the Complainant, Welfare Call (LAC) LTD, as the Expert has determined it to be an abusive registration by the Respondent, ecare Solutions.
Legal Principles
- The Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration under the Policy.
- The Expert considered the presumption that ordinary Internet users would associate the Domain Name with the Complainant due to its similarity to the WELFARE CALL mark.
- The Expert applied the balance of probabilities standard to determine whether the Respondent's actions constituted an Abusive Registration.
Cited Statute
Nominet Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
Judge Name
Keith Gymer
Passage Text
- The Domain Name is essentially identical to the Complainant's WELFARE CALL name and mark... clients or potential clients of the Complainant, who inadvertently enter the website address www.welfarecall.co.uk instead of ".com" will be diverted without warning to the site of a competitive business, with no connection with the Complainant.
- Having found that the Complainant has Rights, and that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration in the hands of the Respondent, the Expert orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
- The Expert is satisfied that the Complainant has justified its Complaint on the balance of probabilities; finds that the registration and use of the Domain Name by the Respondent has taken unfair advantage of, and been unfairly detrimental to, the Complainant's Rights; that the Domain Name is therefore an Abusive Registration; and that the conditions of Paragraph 2a.ii. of the Policy are met.