Megameeting UK Ltd vs mega-meeting.co.uk domain name dispute (re: 1. Infringement of Trademark)

The Complainant (MegaMeeting UK Ltd) asserted the following:

"On 26th April 2008 Internet MegaMeeting LLC (California, USA) signed a partnership agreement with Stuart Salisbury (Sole Director) of MegaMeeting UK Limited (company registration number 6578840).   James Salisbury was employed to assist in the opening and management of the UK and European office of MegaMeeting UK Limited. Application for the European trade mark was filed 12th August 2008 under the name ‘Internet Megameeting LLC’ (application number 7152796) and the certificate was issued 1st June 2009 (copy attached). We (MegaMeeting UK Limited) as partners and agents of Internet MegaMeeting LLC submit that (www.mega-meeting.co.uk) is an infringement of that trade mark and further, we request the site be transferred to Internet MegaMeeting LLC."

Defence by Website Registrant

  1. A Community trade mark (CTM) gives the registrant exclusive right to use the mark for the goods and/or services that it covers in the EU. The Megameeting Community Trademark has been granted for the following:

Nice Classification:                 9
List of goods and services      Video conferencing and web conferencing software.
                                                         
Nice Classification:                 38
List of goods and services      Video conferencing and web conferencing services.

The website in question (www.mega-meeting.co.uk):

  1. Was created on the 15 July 2008 as a weblog, i.e. it was an information site. As such it uses generic and descriptive language and in so doing does not seek to pass off. See attached extract (i.e. mega-example.png).
  2. Was created nearly 11 months prior to the existence of the EU trademark granted to Internet Megameeting LLC.
  3. Does not offer or provide any goods or services which could in any way be deemed as infringing the trademark MegaMeeting.
  4. Does not offer for sale, lease or rental any products or services and does not seek any commercial gain from any products or services.
  5. Does not seek to confuse visitors as to the purpose of the site and as such contains a quite clear disclaimer as follows:

    6. “Disclaimer: This site has no link whatsoever with any USA based company, especially one called MegaMeeting©. You may need to check your spelling and re-enter the URL if you have arrived here by mistake.”

  6. Has no commercial link with any other website or company.
  7. Makes legitimate non-commercial and fair use of the Domain Name under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protecting the right to freedom of expression.
  8. Now operates solely “in tribute to or in criticism of a person” (Mr James Salisbury) following a request by the complainant to take down the original blog site.


The website in question utilises two words that are in common use within the English language (and derivatives thereof), contained within the Oxford English Dictionary and separated by a hyphen. The complainant, whilst choosing to trademark a conjunction of those two words for “Video conferencing and web conferencing software and services” does not have exclusive use of those two words in their original or indeed hyphenated form.

A validly registered CTM provides the registrant/proprietor with the right to take action anywhere within the EU to prevent others from using a trade mark in a way that is likely to mislead or confuse the public into wrongly believing that their goods or services are connected with or originate from the registrant/proprietor or the registrant’s/proprietor’s company. As such, a CTM confers on its proprietor an exclusive right to use the trade mark and to prevent third parties to use, without consent, the same or a similar mark for identical or similar goods and/or services as those protected by the CTM, i.e. “Video conferencing and web conferencing software and services”.

Should the complainant believe that there is, or has ever been, a CTM infringement there are adequate measures expressly provided for under the CTM regulations (CTMR) in relation to disputes concerning the infringement and validity of CTMs.

Trademark infringement laws state that a proprietor / company must show that they consistently go after companies that infringe upon their trademarks. There are tens of thousands of websites containing the phrase “mega meeting” and/or “mega-meeting” (examples).

Furthermore, the World Intellectual Property Organization Dispute Panel is cognisant of the importance of protecting protest and/or criticism sites that use a trademark to identify the object of their criticism. Also, the US courts have upheld the rights of non-commercial 'gripe sites' in the past when there is no risk of confusion.

The complainant’s assertion of trade mark infringement is quite frankly fatuous and preposterous.