Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The Expert relies on the presumption established in Oxford Instruments plc v Bruinder Singh Dha, DRS00832 (25 March 2003), that "where a Respondent registers a Domain Name:
(i) which is identical (or virtually identical) to a name in respect of which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) where that name is specifically referable to the Complainant and sufficiently distinctive; and
(iii) where there is no obvious justification for the Respondent having adopted that name for the Domain Name; and
(iv) where the Respondent has come forward with no explanation for having selected the Domain Name,
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.