arla.sk (decision No. 36/2022)

The Complainant sought domain name transfer of the domain „arla.sk“ from the Holder onto him due to the alleged interference with his rights to the word trade mark „ARLA“ with effects in Slovakia (inter allia). The Domain was used through a geo-targetting by its redirecting to affiliate websites. The Domain „arla.sk“ was found identical with the trade mark „ARLA“ with likelihood of confusion. The Holder did not prove his legitimate right or interest to the Domain. The Complainant demonstrated a lack of good faith of the Holder by the fact that the Domain has been used with an aim to make unauthorized profits (commissions from sales at affiliate websites) and attract customers to third-parties competing websites (affiliate websites). At the same time, the Domain prevented the Complainant from exploiting its trade mark within the Domain and the Holder committed such domain blocking repeatedly as proven by the Complainant. With regard to the fulfilment of all conditions set out in the ADR Rules, the Expert granted the proposal and ordered the transfer of the Domain to the Complainant.

It is to be noted that the Expert in "arla.sk" decision was Tomas Klinka, Head of IP Department in Bukovinský & Chlipala | Law Firm.

Link to decision (in Slovak): https://adr.eisionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Arla_Rozhodnutie_na-zverejnenie.pdf

cws.sk (decision No. 37/2022)

The Complainant filed its Complain with the approval provided by the the owner of respective trade marks "CWS". The Domain name holder had registered the domain in his own name at the time he was an executive director of the Complainant; while after being revoked from office of the executive director, the Domain name holder provided the given domain name to a competitor of the Complainant. The Expert concluded that the trade marks “CWS” are identical with the domain name „cws.sk“ At the same time the Expert concluded that the likelihood of confusion exists in this case. Moreover, the Complainant proved the Domain name holder’s lack of good faith with respect to registration and using of the domain name. The ADR Expert thus concluded that all necessary conditions required by the Rules of ADR were met and therefore ordered the transfer of the domain to the Complainant.

Link to decision (in Slovak): https://adr.eisionline.org/sk/odborne-rozhodnutie-vo-veci-domeny-cws-sk-37-2022/


obrodenamatica.sk (decision No. 38/2022)

At the time of submission proposal and at the time of decision about the complaint by the Expert, the "obrodenamatica.sk" domain was publicly used. The Expert stated the similarity of the domain with protected designations, the reputation of the protected designations, the reputation of the Complainant (public institution "Matica slovenská") and the resultant likelihood of confusion between them. The Holder uses the domain for the purposes of criticizing the Complainant as a public institution. However, he has not shown that his interest in criticizing that institution is legitimate. On the contrary, the Complainant had sufficiently demonstrated a lack of good faith in the use of the domain by the Holder, when the website on the domain was implemented as a critical site serving as a tool in the competitive fight against the Complainant and its representatives. The Expert thus concluded that all necessary conditions required by the Rules of ADR were met and therefore ordered the transfer of the domain <obrodenamatica.sk> to the Complainant.

Bukovinský & Chlipala | Law Firm represented the Complainant in this case.

Link to decision (in Slovak): https://adr.eisionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Obrodenamatica_Rozhodnutie_na-zverejnenie.pdf


bioderma.sk (decision No. 39/2022)

In „bioderma.sk“ case the Holder has registered the Domain without using it in any way. The Expert stated that the trademark „BIODERMA“ is identical with the Domain „bioderma.sk“. The Complainant has demonstrated the Holder’s lack of good faith in that the Domain has not been used at all for at least 2 years from the date of its registration. 

Link to decision (in Slovak): https://adr.eisionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Bioderma_Rozhodnutie.pdf