legal action against one of their former video jocks who, bearing a grudge against the broadcaster, had registered mtv.com and was using it to communicate with others whose feelings about MTV were less than positive. Now it is clearly established that domain names are not pieces of property but merely convenient tags registered by a central authority that has the right to take them away again if certain things happen (including 90 days’ non-use, which contrasts with the five years it takes for a trademark to become vulnerable). Another type of registration was the subject of an attempt to elevate it to the level of intangible property recently (Naylor v Hutson and others [1994] FSR 63, Chancery division, Newcastle District Registry).

doi:10.4324/9781843142928-13

Chapter

legal action against one of their former video jocks who, bearing a grudge against the broadcaster, had registered mtv.com and was using it to communicate with others whose feelings about MTV were less than positive. Now it is clearly established that domain names are not pieces of property but merely convenient tags registered by a central authority that has the right to take them away again if certain things happen (including 90 days’ non-use, which contrasts with the five years it takes for a trademark to become vulnerable). Another type of registration was the subject of an attempt to elevate it to the level of intangible property recently (Naylor v Hutson and others [1994] FSR 63, Chancery division, Newcastle District Registry).

Chapter

legal action against one of their former video jocks who, bearing a grudge against the broadcaster, had registered mtv.com and was using it to communicate with others whose feelings about MTV were less than positive. Now it is clearly established that domain names are not pieces of property but merely convenient tags registered by a central authority that has the right to take them away again if certain things happen (including 90 days’ non-use, which contrasts with the five years it takes for a trademark to become vulnerable). Another type of registration was the subject of an attempt to elevate it to the level of intangible property recently (Naylor v Hutson and others [1994] FSR 63, Chancery division, Newcastle District Registry).

ABSTRACT

Maddocks J: The subject-matter of this case is unusual. It is the right to a registration mark for a motor car. The plaintiff is the owner of a replica MG sports car called a Naylor which was manufactured as a prototype in 1984 by Naylor Cars Limited, later Naylor Cars plc. I shall refer to it as the ‘red Naylor’. In that year it received the registration mark or number 1700 MG. In June of 1986 the defendants were in possession of the car, and the second defendant, Mr Mark Hutson, caused the registration mark to be transferred to another car. The defendants are all connected, and the present resting place for the mark 1700 MG is a car held by the fifth defendant, the Hutson Motor Company Limited.