Geen channel.tv voor Channel Television
Domeinnaamrecht. Reverse domain name Hijacking. Sinds 1962 zendt Channel Television op de kanaaleilanden uit op televisie en heeft een statutaire monopolie op uitzenden. Bijzonder onderscheidend vermogen voor een beschrijvende en geografische term vereist, in de UDRP-procedure goede onderbouwing van reputatie en z.g. goodwill. Zonder merkenregistratie moet onderscheidend vermogen erg sterk gemotiveerd zijn. Dit is niet het geval en minder nog is gemotiveerd hoe bekend de aanduiding is buiten de geografische zone van de Kanaaleilanden. Hoewel de domeinnaam identiek is aan de handelsnaam "Channel TV" (eerste vereiste), wordt niet voldaan aan beide andere vereisten.
In "reconventie" brengt de gedaagde in het geschil naar voren dat hier sprake kan zijn van omgekeerde domeinnaamkaping, hiervoor is te weinig bewezen.
onder A. In this case the Complainant has brought little evidence of acquired distinctiveness and even less of acquired distinctiveness outside the geographically restricted area of the Channel Islands where it is well-known.
In contrast the Respondent has been able to bring Internet search based evidence to demonstrate the ubiquity of business identifying terms involving the words “channel” and “TV” and the lack of a strong presumptive connection between the terms and the Complainant.
The Respondent makes a number of points in support of its allegation that "Channel TV" is not a trade mark or service mark in the hands of the Complainant. It contends that trade names (and Channel TV is a trade name of the Complainant) are expressly excluded from the Policy. It also contends that the public awareness of Channel TV is confined to such a small geographical area that it "cannot credibly assert a monopoly in the primary generic meaning of the word ‘channel’ in connection with television, and certainly not on an international basis".
(...)
D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Although the Respondent alludes to the possibility that the complaint in this case entails reverse domain name hijacking, it has not fully argued this point. Evidence of such abuse of the UDRP process must be clearer than it is in this case for such a finding to be made by a Panel on its own account. For that reason, the Panel declines to make any finding on this point.
