There was a case concerning the domains newdirectiontackle.co.uk and ndtackle.co.uk, brought by New Direction Tackle Ltd against Yan Ke. New Direction Tackle Ltd was represented by Adlex Solicitors. The full decision can be found on the Nominet website. Simply enter case number D00028127 in the search field. https://secure.nominet.org.uk/drs/search-disputes.html

However, this comes a little late, and in the meantime, it has had a massive impact on the integrity of our company. From one day to the next, we lost our website, URL, email address and all logins linked to the email addresses (which we then had to restore).

In this context, some of the expert’s findings deserve closer attention.

 

a) No understanding of the separation of private individuals and companies as separate legal entities

 

The following quote can be found on page 10 of the decision:

 

Taking into account the Respondent’s other assertions, it is understood that the argument advanced by the Respondent is essentially that the “tackle trade business” is his own and that he is entitled to run and control that business in any way that he sees fit including through whatever company he wishes and utilising the Domain Names in whatever manner he wishes.

The Respondent is mistaken in that belief because he overlooks the fact that the Complainant is a separate legal entity. That legal entity has Rights which it is entitled to enforce against any third party – including the Respondent.

 

b) Unfair competitive behaviour and acting
unfairly detrimental to the interests of New Direction Tackle Ltd.

 

The following quote can be found on page 12 of
the decision:

 

The evidence shows that the Respondent is using the Domain Names for the
purpose of operating a competing business. In the circumstances, it is
inevitable that an Internet user seeing the Domain Names and/or the website to
which they are now connected is likely to believe that they are connected to
the Complainant.

 

The following quote can be found on page 13 of
the decision:

 

By the Respondent’s own admission, he has transferred the business
activities carried out by the Complainant via websites at the Domain Names from
the Complainant to a new company. It is clear that such use adversely impacts
the business of the Complainant.

 

Regardless of the wider commercial disputed, the Respondent’s
grievances do not entitle him to act in a manner which is unfairly detrimental
to the interests of the Complainant of which he was formerly a director and
shareholder(and in respect of which he claims entitlement to de facto control)
by either removing the Complainant’s websites (and also preventing use of email
services to and from addresses associated with the Domain Names) and/or by
entering into competition with the Complainant using the Domain Names.

 

The expert who assesses the facts and must make a decision definitively concludes that Yan Ke’s behaviour is unfair and fundamentally contrary to the interests of New
Direction Tackle Ltd. It even appears to be deeply contradictory.