Many businesses (but not all) incorporate their trade marks into their domain names but what about domain names?
In a corporate transaction domain names are often bundled together with trademark rights; initially during due diligence and later when drafting trademark assignments. Many businesses (but not all) incorporate their trademarks into their domain names. For example the brand Nike has trademarks in the word Nike. As Nike is distinctive and not descriptive it is capable of being registered as a trademark. Nike also uses the domain nike.com to market its goods and as such any 3rd party using Nike risk infringing the trademark rights of Nike. This is different to a domain such as hotels.com. Hotel is descriptive and not capable of being registered as a trademark. Allowing such a registration would prevent all hotels describing themselves as such. Some domain names incorporate words which are trade marks and some domain names do not. The point is that the domain name itself is not the intellectual property right.
A domain name on its own does not attach to any tangible thing; it is not fixed. It is a string of characters which directs a user to a particular area of space sitting on a server which may or may not contain further information. This server space (which is ring-fenced by paying an appropriate fee) may be occupied by digital works of copyright. The most well-known is works of copyright in website content (e.g. text, pictures, graphics and videos) and to a lesser known extent, copyright in software code. This code sits behind the website and allows the website to operate as it should (think interfaces and operating systems). This interoperability can be illustrated by the issues web users experienced when internet use transitioned to smart phone use. Many websites designed to operate from a desk-top PC no longer worked properly and such websites had to be modified to allow browsing via smartphone technology. Again, the point here is that works of copyright subsist in the code and website content and not the domain name itself.
Domains are transient; they can be used to direct users to any space on the web which, if used correctly directs you to relevant information. In reality the information (if any) may or may not be connected to the string of characters. The individual with technical rights is able to configure the space where the domain sits to direct users to the most appropriate web space: a common practice employed by owners of multiple similar domains where a user typing in 100 domains will redirect them to a single domain, often a generic top-level domains (gTLD) or .com domain. Commercially, you would want your customer users to land at relevant content but phishing practices, worms and viruses pose significant cybersecurity risks to the business. These practices can result in customers revealing personal and financial information to 3rd parties who use the information fraudulently. If your customers or potential customers are victims of such cybercrimes they will have little trust in your business and you will most likely suffer adverse publicity. A cyberattack which divulges personal data and which has been made possible due to inadequate security measures will not only harm your reputation but may also land you with a penalty from the Information Commissioner as well as you being subject to claims from individuals whose personal data has been obtained.
An intellectual property right is an intangible right which attaches to its tangible expression. As an intangible right, the benefit of ownership is that its owner has a right of enforcement. This enforcement right is one which is not necessarily subject to taking physical possession. Delivery up of tangible expressions of intellectual property rights illustrates enforcement by taking physical possession in an intellectual property context.
If a domain name is an intellectual property right then it can only be an intangible asset, the expression of which can only be the words or string of characters which may or may not direct a user to that particular server space containing further information. This string of characters often, but not always, fails to attract rights in itself as it fails to meet the requirements of being unique and distinctive; essential for trademark registration. The most valuable domain names in industry are not trademarks. They are those not capable of trademark registration for lack of distinctiveness and being descriptive of the good or service to which it is trying to attach.
There is no dispute that there is inherent value in some domains which are devoid of distinctive character for trademark purposes and require no creative skill or effort. Excellent examples include domains such as hotels.com and insurance.com. The value of these domains is not in the domain itself but rather in the aggregation of information and data which sits within these domains.
The right of enforcement of tangible property is possession. If a domain name is a tangible property right then legal assignment (transfer) must be by taking possession. Further, to legally assign a tangible property right the assignment must be absolute or unconditional. A domain name owner does not have this absolute right and title to give. There is no legal basis to bring a claim against a bona fide domain name owner (other than for trademark infringement). Its entitlement is subject to the terms of the registration agreement with the domain name registrant which is ultimately controlled by the ICANN. It is therefore not a tangible property right either.
Whilst many bundle domain name registrations along with trademarks or other intellectual property rights, unless there are adequate contractual provisions to effect transfer, there is no legal basis which a purchaser of a domain name could enforce its rights against the original party.
The owner of a domain name is the person or entity listed as being authorised to make or request changes to be made in certain information related to a domain name. It is crucial to not only know who the registrant is but also who has administrative, billing and technical rights related to any given domain. Any purported transfer of a domain name from one registrant to another should be by written contract, the terms of which address each of the aforementioned rights which if the original registrant fails to fulfil its contractual obligations gives the incoming registrant the right to claim for breach of contract.
Where a transaction does not involve the transfer of valuable intellectual property rights, it is not necessary to draft additional documentation for the transfer of domain names. You do not need an assignment. It is adequate to include the necessary provisions in the transaction documentation.
Similarly, if a transaction does involve transferring valuable intellectual property rights, domain name transfer obligations can be included within the IP assignment documentation or the transaction documentation but corporate and IP teams need to be clear between them as to where it is being addressed.
As a purchaser, you will want to ensure there is a clear contractual right to access and control the domain names. This can form part of the completion deliverables and includes:
A purchaser will also want to receive the benefit of certain warranties which will again strengthen the contractual basis for which you may bring a claim should the seller fail to affect the transfer. These warranties are that:
Below are some of the questions we are regularly asked by startups, covering a range of topic areas.
UK law firm Browne Jacobson, which opened its first overseas office in Dublin in September, has outlined its strategic plans to grow its legal team over the next four years.
Bishopsgate Corporate Finance and law firm Browne Jacobson have jointly advised on the acquisition of award-winning tech solutions business, Custard Technical Services by US managers services and cyber security provider, Thrive.
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Every AI will have its own terms of use. DALL·E 2’s Terms of Use dated 3 November 2022 specify that as between a user and Open AI, a user owns their prompts and uploads. Open AI also assigns to the user all rights in any images generated by DALL·E 2 for that user (subject to the user complying with those Terms of Use, and to a licence to use inputs and output to develop and improve the services).
A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.
The Digital Services Act (the “DSA”) has today (27 October) been given the go-ahead by the EU Council and will enter into force by early 2024.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate technology dealmakers have advised Agilico, a workplace technology business, on its acquisition of Capital Document Solutions Limited for an undisclosed amount.
The increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the way businesses operate and is having a disruptive impact in sectors that have traditionally been slow to modernise.
The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.
Browne Jacobson’s specialist cleantech lawyers have advised AIM listed Clean Power Hydrogen Group Limited (CPH2) on its licence agreement with Bentec GmbH, a member of the Kenera business of the KCA Deutag Group. Kenera will manufacture CPH2’s unique membrane-free electrolysers from its facility in Bad Bentheim, Germany.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance lawyers have advised leading mid-market private equity firm, LDC and management on the sale of specialist managed IT services provider, Littlefish to Bowmark Capital.
The Digital Markets Act (the “DMA”) joins the dots between competition law and data protection law and actively targets data-driven platforms. It is also a comprehensive regulation to take note of, with familiar GDPR-style fines tied to turnover.
We advised equity investor, Business Growth Fund on its exit from mobile data SIMs & business communications specialist Jola Cloud Solutions.
This article covers, at a high level, some of the legal issues that arise in the lifecycle of the innovation and deployment of new technology within the energy sector. It is not intended to be a comprehensive account of all legal aspects.
First Hydrogen has identified 4 sites in the UK where it plans to locate large hydrogen refuelling stations for commercial vehicles. The sites will also accommodate on-site hydrogen production of between 20 and 40 MW (totalling 80 MW - 160 MW across all 4 locations) and will serve the urban areas of Greater Liverpool, Greater Manchester, London and the Thames Estuary. The plans form part of the Energy division’s strategy to develop green hydrogen production projects, initially in the UK and Canada.
As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.
National law firm Browne Jacobson has launched an electric vehicle (EV) scheme as part of its employee benefits package. The benefit will be available to all of the firm’s employees across its five offices, including Birmingham, Exeter, London, Manchester, and Nottingham.
In anticipation of the adoption of the Building Safety Bill, our specialist compliance and regulatory team will give an overview of the measures proposed in the Bill.
The Presidents of the Employment Tribunals England and Wales and Scotland have issued a new road map for 2022-23, providing an update on the resourcing challenges faced by employment tribunals and the steps put in place to address these.
We invite you to watch our on-demand webinar which looks into how healthtech is commissioned from a health and tech perspective.
The key benefits and pitfalls for agile software contracting, and recommendations for government bodies.
In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.
Browne Jacobson has advised on today’s (16 February 2022 - 8.00am) admission of the entire issued ordinary share capital of green hydrogen technology and manufacturing group, Clean Power Hydrogen to trade on AIM, a market operated by the London Stock Exchange plc.
As a developing area, key stakeholders in this space such as insurers, and technology and software developers looking to become ASDEs or NUIC operators, should keep a keen eye on whether the Government proceeds with introducing new legislation in line with the report’s recommendations.
Five considerations for HEIs when undertaking an IT procurement for largely “off the shelf” small-scale student-facing applications for online teaching, knowledge stores and document repositories etc.
More needs to be made of these procurement routes, with clients honouring the original concept rather than watering down concepts.
From 1st January, new import rules come into effect, with potential for significant delay, disruption and cost for importers and exporters.
Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.
