The Case of Normann Copenhagen ApS v. Peter Normann (Case No. D2017-0829)

The domain name dispute case of Normann Copenhagen ApS v. Peter Normann, with the case number D2017-0829, was a notable instance involving a claim of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

Background of the Case

Complainant: Normann Copenhagen ApS, a leading Danish design firm established in 1999, held several registrations for the trademark NORMANN COPENHAGEN and domain names containing “normann-copenhagen” or “normann.”

Respondent: Peter Normann, whose family name is Normann.

Disputed Domain Name: The domain in question was , registered with Ascio Technologies Inc.

Key Dates and Proceedings

Filing Date: The Complaint was filed on April 25, 2017.

Commencement of Proceedings: The proceedings began on May 4, 2017, with the Response filed by May 24, 2017.

Appointment of Panelist: Knud Wallberg was appointed as the sole panelist on June 1, 2017.

Supplemental Filings: Both parties submitted additional filings in early June 2017, which were admitted into the case.

Arguments Presented

Complainant’s Claim: Normann Copenhagen ApS argued that the domain was identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks, asserting that the respondent had no legitimate interest in the domain and that it was registered and used in bad faith. They claimed that the domain had not been used for 21 years and that the respondent was holding it for investment purposes.

Respondent’s Defense: Peter Normann contended that the domain name was not confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark. He stated that “Normann” was his family name and that the domain had been used for legitimate purposes, including email addresses and hosting IT solutions. He highlighted that the domain was registered three years before the complainant’s company was founded.

Panel’s Findings and Decision

Rights or Legitimate Interests: The Panel found that the Respondent had rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, as it was his family name and had been used for legitimate noncommercial purposes.

Bad Faith: It was determined that the domain was not registered in bad faith since it predated the complainant’s trademark and company establishment.

RDNH Allegation: The Panel agreed with the respondent’s claim of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. This decision was based on the facts that the complainant should have known it could not succeed, provided incomplete evidence, and made incorrect assertions.

Conclusion

The Complaint was denied, and the case was an example of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, where the complainant tried to unjustly take over a domain name. The ruling emphasized the importance of proper evidence and good faith in domain name disputes.

This case serves as a precedent in domain name dispute resolutions, highlighting the intricacies involved in such legal matters and the significance of fair and just proceedings.

The domain name dispute case of Normann Copenhagen ApS v. Peter Normann, with the case number D2017-0829, was a notable instance involving a claim of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Background of the Case Complainant: Normann Copenhagen ApS, a leading Danish design firm established in 1999, held several registrations for the trademark NORMANN COPENHAGEN and…