NEWS Microsoft criticised over rebranded SkyDrive


Microsoſt is facing fresh trademark infringement claims over its newly-named cloud service aſter a Danish web-hosting company said the new model was too similar to a programme it runs.


Microsoſt rebranded its SkyDrive service as OneDrive, but the move has been criticised by Danish company One.com. Tis service has now launched.


One of One.com’s programmes, Cloud Drive, offers similar features to the Microsoſt model.


It provides data backup and makes files


available for access and also includes file sharing features.


Te dispute over SkyDrive started last year when Microsoſt was ordered to change the name of the programme by the UK High Court.


Te court said its name infringed trademarks belonging to satellite broadcaster BSkyB in the UK and Europe.


Justice Asplin ruled on June 28 that use of the word ‘Sky’ was likely to confuse customers and that evidence had shown there had already been instances of confusion.


In a statement, Danish-based One.com said the new name was “very close” to its own and “will lead to confusion”.


“It was a big surprise to me that Microsoſt has decided to name its cloud service OneDrive,” said Tomas Darré Medard Frederiksen, chief operating officer at One.com, in a statement to TBO.


“For me it’s important to protect our brand and company name. I would have expected that


Rimmel UDRP panellist blasts “monkey business”


Cosmetics brand Rimmel has failed to transfer rimmel.com in a cybersquatting case in which the arbitrator described the respondent’s conduct as “monkey business”.


Rimmel’s owner, Coty, had filed a complaint under the UDRP over the domain, created in 1997.


Te company uses rimmellondon.com as its main website.


Since its registration in 2005, rimmel.com has been used to provide pay-per-click links and, later in that year, for a business called Name Magic. But otherwise it has nearly always yielded a blank page or simple Google search bar.


Coty alleged that because the domain had not been used for a long time and that its owner Peter Colman is “a serial cybersquatter”, the domain had been registered in bad faith.


Te respondent, calling himself Tomas Marks, said he is the domain’s owner, having acquired it in 2007 to develop a fan site for “the well known cinematography grip Kurt Rimmel”.


Richard Lyon, who ruled on the January 20 dispute, which was published 10 days later, explained that Colman has been found guilty of cybersquatting in four reported UDRP decisions.


But, Lyon said, the evidence is “insufficient to conclude that Mr Colman is behind this registration”.


He said the respondent had submitted a statement signed by Tom Marks, which said:


www.worldipreview.com


Coty’s main argument for finding bad faith in the case relied on a case called Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows. Te panel in Telstra concluded that in the circumstances of that case, non-use of a domain name did demonstrate bad faith registration and use.


But Lyon said he could not rely on Telstra, which had found that the complainant’s trademark has a “strong reputation and is widely known, as evidenced by its substantial use in Australia and in other countries”.


Lyon said: “Te respondent in Telstra resided in Australia, and the panel, a professor at an Australian law school, found the domain name at issue was found to be ‘widely known’ there as the principal brand of the nation’s dominant telecom provider.


“I can confirm that I have at no time had any business relationship either formal or informal, oral or in writing with Mr Peter Colman.”


But Lyon said he is “troubled by the possible cyberflight, concealed identity, unexplained ownership transfers, and incomplete information furnished to the registrar”.


“Such monkey business does, as the complainant asserts, raise a suspicion that the respondent has been less than candid with the panel, and that the omissions are material to this dispute. Te policy, however, requires the panel to act on the evidence, not suspicion or suggestion.”


“Te same cannot be said of the disputed domain name in this case. Although long a brand and registered trademark, ‘Rimmel’ has not achieved the same sort of everyday recognition even in its home country, the UK,” Lyon claimed.


Despite rejecting Coty’s complaint, Lyon said the company “is not without recourse”.


“Mr Marks has provided an address in the UK, and the registrar [in this case] is located in the US. Te courts in those jurisdictions allow disclosure and discovery that should enable the complainant, should it choose to do so, to probe further into the ownership of the disputed domain name.” 


Trademarks & Brands Online Volume 3, Issue 1 9


Microsoſt would have done a more thorough research, before releasing its new name. It is aſter all, one of the big players in the market.”


Frederiksen would not comment on whether the company was going to open litigation proceedings.


“One.com is one of Europe’s leading web hosting companies, offering a cloud service for the last three years where you can sync personal files in the cloud. OneDrive, from Microsoſt, is a similar product with a similar name that will lead to confusion,” the statement added.


A spokesman for Microsoſt said it worked to ensure it had obtained “all the necessary rights” to OneDrive around the world during the rebranding process. 


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44