The Market Court: SEN­SU­RA MIO Is Not Confusable with MIO for Goods In Class 10

The Market Court issued a trademark decision 430/16 on 8 July 2016. The court ruled that the applied international trademark SEN­SU­RA MIO is not confusable with the earlier European Union trademark MIO. Both marks are registered in class 10.

Background

Co­lop­last A/S (Coloplast) applied to register an international trademark SENSURA MIO in class 10 for os­to­my bags and parts and fit­ting the­re­for (not inc­lu­ded in ot­her clas­ses) and me­di­cal de­vi­ces, na­me­ly, re­cep­tac­les for the col­lec­tion of exc­re­tions from the hu­man bo­dy in re­la­tion to os­to­my. The mark is based on a Danish trademark registration on 14 August 2013.

The Patent and Registration Office (PRH) denied the registration (decision 10 June 2015) because the mark is liable to be confused with an earlier European Union trademark (EUTM) registration MIO (no. 8175473), registered on 5 April 2011. The EUTM MIO is registered in class 10 for in­fu­sion and in­jec­tion de­vi­ces for ad­mi­nis­te­ring drugs; parts and fit­tings for the afo­re­said goods.

Coloplast filed an appeal to the Market Court against the PRH's decision.

The Market Court issued its decision 430/16 on 8 July 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 14 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 9 of the Finnish Trademarks Act (7/1964), a trademark shall not be registered if it is liable to be confused with a European Union trademark within the meaning of section 57 that has been registered on the basis of an earlier application.

According to section 6 paragraph 1 of the Act, trade symbols shall be regarded under this Act as liable to cause confusion only if they apply to goods of identical or similar type.

The court referred to the established case-law and stated the following: 

In assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their intended purpose and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. The comparison of the goods or services should also focus on their distribution channels and their usual origin.

The applied mark SENSURA MIO covers the following goods in the class 10: os­to­my bags and parts and fit­ting the­re­for (not inc­lu­ded in ot­her clas­ses) and me­di­cal de­vi­ces, na­me­ly, re­cep­tac­les for the col­lec­tion of exc­re­tions from the hu­man bo­dy in re­la­tion to os­to­my. 

The earlier EUTM MIO is registered in class 10 for in­fu­sion and in­jec­tion de­vi­ces for ad­mi­nis­te­ring drugs; parts and fit­tings for the afo­re­said goods.

The court stated that the goods are medical apparatus or instruments. The goods are not in competition and their intended purpose is not the same. However, both goods are part of health care functions and in that sense the goods are similar and their usual origin and their distribution channels are similar. The court stated that the goods are, to some extent, similar.

The court assessed then the relevant public. The court referred to the case-law of the Court of Justice (CJ). CJ has ruled that:

For the purposes of that global appreciation, the average consumer of the category of products concerned is deemed to be reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer's level of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question. [See C-342/97 Lloyd, para 26.]

The court stated that the relevant public consists, on the one hand, of medical or health professionals. The other part of the relevant public, emphasized by the court, consists of consumers who are using ostomy bags and other accessories related to ostomy. The court stated that the attentiveness of these consumers is considerably higher.

It was now time to compare the two marks. The court referred again to the case-law of CJ. CJ has ruled that

The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components. The perception of marks in the mind of the average consumer of the type of goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global appreciation of the likelihood of confusion. The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details. [See C-251/95 SABEL, paras 22-23.]

The applied mark SENSURA MIO consists of the words "sensura" and "mio". The court considered that the word "SENSURA" is the most dominant and distinctive element of the mark. However, the word "MIO" is not completely insignificant.

The earlier EUTM MIO consists of the word "mio" and, according to the court, the mark has a normal distinctiveness.

The two marks have a visual difference based on the amount of the words described above. Nevertheless, the court stated that the marks have, to some extent, a visual similarity.

The two marks have also an aural difference based on the amount of the words described above. The court considered that the relevant Finnish public is paying more attention on the beginning of the marks. Therefore, the word element "SENSURA" is the most dominant element when assessing the pronunciation of the applied mark SENSURA MIO. The court stated that there is a low degree of aural similarity.

The words "sensura" or "mio" do not have any clear meaning among the relevant Finnish public. The word "mio" is Italian. The court stated that the relevant Finnish public does not, per se, understand Italian. However, the relevant Finnish public might still understand the meaning of the word "mio" because it has similarities with the corresponding Swedish word "min" and the corresponding English word "mine". Therefore, there is a low degree of conceptual similarity.

Based on the assessment above, the court stated that the conflicting marks are, to some extent, similar.

It was now time to draw some conclusions. The court repeated that the goods are, to some extent, similar. The earlier EUTM MIO consists of the word "mio" and is thus wholly included in the applied mark SENSURA MIO. However, the word element SENSURA is the most dominant element of the applied mark SENSURA MIO. The court concluded that, after taking into account the differences and the high level of attention of the relevant public, the applied mark SENSURA MIO is not confusable with the EUTM MIO. 

The court reversed the PRH's decision and the case was sent back to PRH for the registration of the applied mark.

The Market Court: Domain Name Dispute and the Appellant's Allegedly Established Trademarks

The Market Court issued a domain name decision 418/16 on 1 July 2016. According to the court, the appellant, who was opposing a domain name registration, could not prove that its trademarks were evidently established at the time of the domain name application. In result, the revocation and transfer request was dismissed.

Background

The Finnish communications regulatory authority (FICORA) granted a domain name ppi­net.fi to a person X on 9 November 2013.

Te­lia­So­ne­ra Fin­land Oyj (TeliaSonera) requested FICORA to cancel the domain name and to transfer it to TeliaSonera. TeliaSonera argued that the domain name is a derivative of its established trademarks iNET KES­KUS­KA­TU, INET and PP.INET.FI.

FICORA dismissed the request on 18 December 2014. According to FICORA, the establishment of the marks is not evident. 

TeliaSonera filed an appeal to the Market Court against the FICORA's decision.

The Market Court issued its decision 418/16 on 1 July 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 4 paragraph 3 of Domain Name Act 228/2003 (amendments up to 397/2009 included), a domain name shall not be illegally based on a protected name or trademark owned by another party or on a natural person’s name.

According to section 3 sub-paragraph 3 of the Act, protected name or trademark means a name or trademark that has been entered into the trade register or into the registers of trademarks, associations, foundations, or political parties; or an established name, a secondary mark or trademark referred to in the Business Names Act (128/1979) or Trademarks Act (7/1964); or a name of a public body, unincorporated state enterprise, independent public corporation, public association, or diplomatic mission of a foreign state or their bodies.

According to section 12 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 4 of the Act, FICORA may revoke a domain name, if there are weighty reasons to suspect that the domain name is a derivative of a protected name or trademark or a derivative of a natural person’s name that has been obtained with the obvious intent of obtaining benefit or harming another, and the holder of the name or trademark requests that the name be revoked and the domain name holder has not presented an acceptable reason for its right within a period of two weeks.

According to section 12 paragraph 2 of the Act, FICORA may transfer a domain name that has been revoked by virtue of paragraph 1 (2–4) to a party that has requested the revocation.

The court referred to Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) ruling 2006:41, where SAC stated that the competence of FICORA is, regarding the section 12 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 4 of the Act, only limited to situations where it is evident that the domain name is an unlawful derivative of a protected trademark.

The court also referred to legal literature where it is stated that the establishment of the mark has to be evident. This requirement is justifiable because of the simplified procedure used in the assessment of the domain name applications.

The court had to assess whether the appellant's marks were evidently established at the time of the domain name application on 9 November 2013. If that was the case, the marks are then considered as protected trademarks and eligible for the protection provided in the section 12 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 4.

TeliaSonera argued that the mark iNET KES­KUS­KA­TU was introduced in 1994 and it was used for a long time on a website inet.fi. According to TeliaSonera, this website was one of the most popular and used websites in Finland in the late 1990's.

TeliaSonera argued also that the mark INET has been used actively for internet services since 1995. INET was the most popular home internet plan in Finland. TeliaSonera has also had some other services with the mark INET, such as INET voice chat and INET live.

TeliaSonera argued also that the mark PP.INET.FI has been widely used for email services since 1995 and there are still many active users of the email addresses @pp.inet.fi.

The court stated that the marks of the appellant were introduced in the 1990's and they have been widely used back then. However, the assessment here required evidence of the alleged establishment at the time of the domain name application on 9 November 2013. The court stated that the provided evidence is not able to prove that the appellant's marks were evidently established at the time of the domain name application. Therefore, the marks were not protected and there was no need to assess whether the domain name has been obtained with the obvious intent of obtaining benefit or harming the appellant.

The action was dismissed.

The court ordered the appellant to pay the defendant's legal fees, in total 3 441 euros.

The Market Court: FUSION (Figure) Is Confusable with FRESH FUSION for Cigarettes and Tobaccos

The Market Court issued a trademark decision 429/16 on 7 July 2016. The court ruled that the applied national trademark FUSION (figure) is confusable with the earlier international trademark registration FRESH FUSION. Both marks are for cigarettes, tobaccos and other smokers' articles.

Background

Reemts­ma Ci­ga­ret­ten­fab­ri­ken GmbH (Reemtsma) applied to register a figure mark FUSION in class 36 for cigarettes, tobaccos and other smokers' articles on 29 December 2014.

Application no. T201452598.

The Patent and Registration Office (PRH) denied the registration (decision 25 August 2015) because the mark is liable to be confused with an earlier international trademark registration FRESH FUSION (no. 1155884), registered on 11 February 2013. The mark FRESH FUSION is registered in class 34 for cigarettes, tobacco, tobacco products, lighters, matches and smokers' articles. 

Reemtsma filed an appeal to the Market Court against the PRH's decision.

The Market Court issued its decision 429/16 on 7 July 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 14 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 8 of the Finnish Trademarks Act (7/1964), a trademark shall not be registered if it is liable to be confused with a trademark protected by an international registration valid in Finland or the European Community that on the basis of this registration enjoys an earlier right in Finland or the European Community.

According to section 6 paragraph 1 of the Act, trade symbols shall be regarded under this Act as liable to cause confusion only if they apply to goods of identical or similar type.

The court referred to the established case-law and stated the following: 

There is a likelihood of confusion where the public can be mistaken as to the origin of the goods or services in question.

Accordingly, the risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion.

The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.

In assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their intended purpose and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. The comparison of the goods or services should also focus on their distribution channels and their usual origin.

The global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.

The more similar the goods or services covered and the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion.

The applied mark FUSION (figure) covers the following goods in the class 34: tobacco, whether manufactured or unmanfactured; smokers' articles; tobacco substitutes (not for medical purposes); cigarettes; cigarillos; hand-operated implements for rolling cigarettes; mouthpieces for cigarette holders; cigarette filters; cigarette paper; electronic cigarettes; liquids for use in electronic cigarettes.

The earlier mark FRESH FUSION is registered in class 34 for cigarettes; tobacco; tobacco products; lighters; matches; smokers' articles.

These goods are consequently considered identical.

The applied mark FUSION is a figure mark and it is written in capital letters. The mark has a rather usual font. The letters F and O are stylized. However, the figured elements are clearly secondary to the word "FUSION". 

The earlier mark consists of two words, "FRESH" and "FUSION". It is likely that the relevant Finnish public understands the meaning of the English word "fresh". According to the court, the word element "FRESH" describes the quality of the goods. Therefore, the word element "FUSION" is the most dominant and distinctive element of the mark.

The biggest visual and aural difference between the marks is the word "FRESH" in the earlier mark FRESH FUSION. However, as mentioned above, the word "FUSION" is the most dominant and distinctive element of that earlier mark. Therefore, the conflicting marks have a high degree of visual and aural similarity.

Both marks have the word "fusion". It is likely that the relevant Finnish public understands the meaning of the English word "fusion". The word "fusion" is the most dominant element of the mark FRESH FUSION. Therefore, there is a very high degree of conceptual similarity.

The conflicting marks have identical goods. Furthermore, the marks have a visual, aural and conceptual similarity. The court concluded that the applied mark FUSION (figure) is confusable with the earlier mark FRESH FUSION.  

The action was dismissed.

Big Finnish Music Artists Are Abandoning Copyright Society TEOSTO

The country's largest newspaper Helsingin Sanomat had an article about music artists and copyright collecting societies on 16 July 2016.

The article explained how big Finnish music artists are abandoning the Finnish copyright society TEOSTO. The problem lies within the taxation and the fact that royalty payments are always personal income if you are an artist. It is not possible to channel the royalty payments into a company.

Taxation issues...
Image courtesy of stevepb at Pixabay.com

The newspaper wrote that the Finnish band Sunrise Avenue has been a member of STIM, a collecting society in Sweden, since 2007. The lead singer of the band, Samu Haber, told that the band was offered a significant publishing agreement back in 2007. The publisher did not want to sign the contract with TEOSTO so the band had to choose STIM.

TEOSTO is not pleased with the current situation. “We fear that we lose all the big Finnish artists”, says Teosto CEO Katri Sipilä. According to Sipilä, there are also many Finnish songwriters who are joining STIM.

The issue is mentioned in the current government programme. TEOSTO is hoping that the problem could be fixed.

---

SOURCE: Nissinen, Hannes (2016, July 16). Isot suomalaiset yhtyeet jättäneet Teoston – Samu Haber: ”En usko, että Suomessa on yhtään kansainvälisen tason artistia, joka olisi Teoston jäsen”. Helsingin Sanomat. [online] Available at: http://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/a1468636274215 [Accessed 18 July. 2016].

The Finnish Trademarks Act Will Be Revised

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment has appointed a working group to revise the current Trademarks Act (7/1964). The Ministry gave its decision on 22 June 2016.

This will be an overall reform that takes care of the implementation of the revised EU Trademark Directive 2015/2436 and the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks. This revision will also bring some changes to the Trade Names Act (128/1979).

The term of operation for the working group is between 15 August 2016 and 15 December 2017. The group will prepare a Government Proposal and the Proposal will be handed to the Parliament in Autumn 2018.

The Market Court Ordered ISPs to Give Up Personal Details of Internet Subscribers

The Market Court issued three copyright decisions, 423/16, 424/16 and 425/16, on 7 July 2016. In the decisions, the court ordered the internet service providers TeliaSonera, DNA and Elisa to give up the personal details of thousands of IP addresses (in total 4 871 IP addresses) because copyrighted works were made available to the public to a significant extent from those IP addresses. The infringing acts occurred in a BitTorrent peer-to-peer network.

Background

Crys­ta­lis En­ter­tain­ment UG is a rightsholder of the tv-shows Ash vs Evil Dead, Black Sails, Power and Spartacus.

According to the rightsholder, several Finnish internet subscribers have, unauthorised by the author, made the mentioned tv-shows available to the public to a significant extent. These infringing acts have occurred in a BitTorrent peer-to-peer network.

The IP addresses of the internet subscribers were logged by a technology company that had monitored the BitTorrent traffic. In March 2016, the rightsholder requested the Market Court to order the relevant internet service providers (ISP), namely TeliaSonera, DNA and Elisa, to give up the personal details of the internet subscribers pursuant to section 60a of the Finnish Copyright Act (404/1961).

The Market Court issued its decisions 423/16, 424/16 and 425/16 on 7 July 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 60a of the Act: 

In individual cases, notwithstanding confidentiality provisions, an author or his representative shall be entitled, by the order of the court of justice, to obtain contact information from the maintainer of a transmitter, server or a similar device or other service provider acting as an intermediary about a tele-subscriber who, unauthorised by the author, makes material protected by copyright available to the public to a significant extent in terms of the protection of the author's rights. The information shall be supplied without undue delay.

The author or his representative who has obtained contact information referred to in subsection 1 above shall be governed by the provisions of the Information Society Code (917/2014) pertaining to confidentiality and the protection of privacy in communications, the handling of messages and identification data, information security, guidance and supervision, coercive measures and sanctions. 

An author or his representative referred to in this section shall defray the costs incurring from the enforcement of an order to supply information and recompense the maintainer of the transmitter, server or other similar device or other service provider acting as an intermediary for possible damage. 

The court stated that the section 60a of the Act must be interpreted in accordance with the Directives 2001/29/EC (The Copyright Directive), 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy Directive) and 2004/48/EC (Enforcement Directive).

The court referred to Court of Justice (CJ) decisions C-275/06 Pro­mu­si­cae and C-461/10 Bon­nier Au­dio, where CJ has ruled that:

ePrivacy Directive does not preclude the possibility for the Member States of laying down an obligation to disclose personal data in the context of civil proceedings.[See C-275/06 Pro­mu­si­cae, paras 54-55 and C-461/10 Bon­nier Au­dio, paras 54-55.]

Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with those directives but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality. [See C-275/06 Pro­mu­si­cae, paras 68-70 and C-461/10 Bon­nier Au­dio, paras 59-61.]

After clarifying the legal basis, the court gave a thorough explanation of the BitTorrent protocol. The court stated that, inter alia, a group of computers downloading and uploading the same content is called a swarm. The computers in the swarm are transferring data between each other. A content shared in a swarm is infringing the author's exclusive right to control a work by making it available to the public. The conduct is infringing even if there are only few computers in the swarm. However, an individual infringement does not automatically mean that the infringer has made copyrighted material available to the public to a significant extent. The court stated that the assessment of the significant extent must be based on an overall consideration of the case. The amount of the users in the swarm is not, per se, decisive. One has to also take into account, for example, the possible harm caused by the entitlement to obtain personal details.

All the tv-shows were shared in multiple swarms. The court paid attention to the total size of the swarms, not only to the amount of the users that were connected with the infringer's IP address. The total size of the swarms regarding each tv-show was at least thousands of users during the analysed 24 hours. 

The court stated that the total size of the swarms has a significance from the rightsholder's point of view. Even though the significant extent is assessed based on the amount shared by an individual user, one can not ignore the total size of the swarms involved in the distribution. The user can not choose the swarm and the amount of the users in each swarm is determined randomly. The log information shows that there has been a considerable demand for the works.

The court stated that the entitlement to obtain personal details is important in order to examine the infringement and to target the infringer. The sharing described above is so significant that the rightsholder needs to have a possibility to intervene the sharing even though it interferes with the protection of privacy. The court emphasized that if the rightsholder is entitled to obtain personal details, it is governed by the provisions regarding confidentiality and the protection of privacy in communications, the handling of messages and identification data and information security. Therefore, the reasons supporting the entitlement to obtain personal details are more significant than the harm caused to the internet subscriber. 

The court concluded that copyrighted works were made available to the public to a significant extent from the listed IP addresses. The court ordered the relevant ISPs to give up the personal details of the internet subscribers.  

Is this swarm meeting the threshold of significant extent?
Image courtesy of PixelAnarchy at Pixabay.com

The rightsholder also tried to get the personal details of the person who receives the invoices regarding the internet subscription. The court rejected this.

The court ordered also the rightsholder to defray the costs incurring from the enforcement of an order to supply information and to recompense possible damage. 

Comments:

It seems that these internet subscribers will soon receive a settlement letter from the rightsholder. You can read more about the rightsholders' settlement letters here and here. 

The Market Court: Domain Name Was Transferred Without the Consent of the Holder

The Market Court issued a domain name decision 383/16 on 27 June 2016. According to the court, there were weighty reasons to suspect that the domain name was transferred to another party without the consent of the holder of the domain name and the transferee did not present an acceptable reason for its right. The court stated that the mere sending of a transfer key in an email is not, per se, expressing the consent of the domain name holder.

Background

The Finnish communications regulatory authority (FICORA) granted a domain name suu­rel­la­sy­da­mel­la.fi to the Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Parishes in Tampere (The Federation of Parishes) on 7 September 2005. The website contains information about volunteer work in the Federation of Parishes. The Federation of Parishes has also a trademark "Suurella Sydämellä" ("With a Big Heart" in English), registered in 2011.

Agile Design Oy (Agile) has, based on a contract between it and the Federation of Parishes, taken care of the maintenance issues regarding the domain name.

In September 2013, FICORA let the Federation of Parishes to know that some problems had occurred with the name servers of the domain name. The Federation of Parishes instructed Agile to take care of these problems. On 16 September 2013, the Federation of Parishes sent an email to Agile and the email included, inter alia, a transfer key. [A fi-domain name is transferred to a new holder by using a transfer key.]

Agile used the transfer key and the domain name was transferred to it on 12 October 2013.

The Federation of Parishes requested FICORA to cancel the domain name and to transfer it back to the Federation of Parishes. The Federation of Parishes argued that the domain name was transferred to Agile without the consent of the Federation of Parishes. Agile was, according to the Federation of Parishes, only allowed to fix the occurred problems. FICORA dismissed the request on 15 June 2015.

The Federation of Parishes filed an appeal to the Market Court against the FICORA's decision. 

The Market Court issued its decision 383/16 on 27 June 2016.

The Market Court

According to section 8 paragraph 2 of Domain Name Act 228/2003 (amendments up to 397/2009 included), a domain name may be transferred to another party. The transfer shall be effective, when the transferee has made an application for the transfer in accordance with section 4 a and the holder of the domain name has consented to the transfer. [A transfer key is expressing the consent.]

According to section 12 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 2 of the Act, FICORA may revoke a domain name, if there are weighty reasons to suspect that the domain name has been transferred to another party without the consent of the holder of the domain name, protected name or trademark, and the holder requests that the name be revoked, and the transferee has not presented an acceptable reason for its right within a period of two weeks. According to section 12 paragraph 2 of the Act, FICORA may transfer a domain name that has been revoked by virtue of paragraph 1 (2–4) to a party that has requested the revocation.

The Federation of Parishes provided evidence of the subcontract that existed between it and Agile. According to that evidence, Agile is taking care of the maintenance issues regarding the domain name. The court stated that there is a weighty reason to suspect that the domain name suu­rel­la­sy­da­mel­la.fi was transferred to Agile without the consent of the Federation of Parishes.

The court had to assess next whether Agile has presented an acceptable reason for its right.

Agile argued that the parties had conversations about the transfer and that the transfer was consensual. According to Agile, it was not a mistake that the Federation of Parishes gave the transfer key via email. The chief executive officer (CEO) of Agile told that he and a project leader B from the Federation of Parishes had conversations about the transfer during the year 2013 and it was clear to both parties that the domain name should belong to Agile. The CEO A told also that Agile could have fixed all the server problems without the transfer key and therefore the sole purpose of the transfer key was to transfer the domain name to Agile.

The project leader B confirmed that the parties had several conversations about the domain name during the year 2013. However, no conversations were held regarding the transfer of the domain name. B or the Chief information officer C, who sent the transfer key to B, did not even have the powers to authorize the transfer on behalf of the Federation of Parishes. B understood later that the transfer key was not needed in order to fix occurred problems regarding the name servers.

The Chief information officer C confirmed the statements presented by B.

The court stated that Agile has not provided any documentary evidence regarding the transfer. Agile has only referred to the consensus between the parties in the conversations in 2013. Agile could not clearly specify the moment when this consensus was reached. The statements of the parties are contradictory. Nothing, apart from the statement made by A, supports the claim that the domain name was transferred with the consent of the Federation of Parishes.

If it's not in a contract, it didn't happen!
Image courtesy of edar at Pixabay.com

The court stated that the sole purpose of a transfer key is to transfer a domain name from one registrar to another. The sending of the transfer key was not needed here in order to fix the problems regarding the name servers. However, this does not mean that the sole announcement of the transfer key to a party, who is responsible of taking care of the maintenance issues regarding the domain name, would authorize the party to transfer the domain name. 

The court concluded that Agile has not presented an acceptable reason for its right.

The court reversed the earlier decision of FICORA and the case was sent back to FICORA for the revocation and the transfer of the domain name.

The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal fees, in total 22 374,36 euros plus legal interest.