DRS D00027385 - ritzexecutivecars.co.uk

[Jeff]

This is another strange decision. The complainant hotel has trademark(s) in the relevant class that predate the registration of the domain, but still lost. (See paragraph 6.4)

Moreover, afaik the words "ritz" and "ritzy" actually derive from the hotel, although the complainant doesn't seem to have made that point.

Perhaps the expert had a bad experience with the late proprietor of the Paris Ritz?

 

[username]

afaik the words "ritz" and "ritzy" actually derive from the hotel, although the complainant doesn't seem to have made that point.

I think such generecisation of the term 'ritz/y' would be bad news for them, especially if the dispute was specifically in the area of hotels/accomodation. So would in fact work against them and not in thier favour imho.

I was trying to poke holes in it too, as I read it after you pointed it out in this thread. My conclusion is that it is surprising that they have a registered trademark for "travel by land, air, sea" or whatever it was and the complaint failed.

However... trademarks do have to be earned through use in trade and not just registration, else it is vulnerable to a petition to be canceled. But that's one for the IPO to hear, and would likely to have arisen between 5 years after the date of trademark registration and the date of the evidence that the RITZ supplied that proves they were providing the services under the name. If they're providing the services it will be protected by the trademark. Not for Nominet to decide though, imho.

But there was no petition to cancel, otherwise it would have been cancelled and removed from their list of registered goods and services. So as far as I can tell, the TM still stands and is applicable UK wide. The point about them being in different locations in the decision does not matter one hoot, it's a UK trademark that covers the entire territory and provides protection as such.