No one has the right to stop their name being used in a web address, regulator warns Wendy Croxford set up a website to vent her fury at her ex-husband using his name in the web address Domain regulator ruled that she could keep the website Wendy Croxford (pictured) set up a website in her ex-husband's new, distinctive name A bitter divorce battle has led to a regulator ruling that individuals do not have the right to protect their names in web addresses in the same way as registered companies. Wendy Croxford, 49, from Weeke, Winchester, set up a website in her ex-husband's distinctive surname after he re-married. Simon Mitchell and his new wife, Maiken Hvidbo, became Mr and Mrs Hvidbo-Mitchell, prompting Mrs Croxford to set up hvidbro-mitchell.co.uk. Mrs Hvidbro-Mitchell launched a dispute with Nominet, claiming Mrs Croxford has since used the site as a forum for hate, protest and obsessive criticism of her ex-husband. Mrs Hvidbro-Mitchell, from Sutton Valance, Kent, said that whenever her name is typed into Google the website comes out at the top of search results. She went to Nominet, the organisation that polices web domains in the UK, to strip Mrs Croxford, who has remarried, of the web address. However, Nominet ruled in Mrs Croxford's favour saying there is 'no free-standing right of personality' and, however unusual Mrs Hvidbro-Mitchell's name may be, she cannot stop Mrs Croxford from using it. Nominet has ruled in favour of celebrities in the past because they have registered their names as trade marks. Mrs Hvidbro-Mitchell argued that, even in her homeland of Denmark, only a tiny handful of people bear the name Hvidbro. The traditional name is protected under Danish law and she had been unable to find anyone in the world who used it in a hyphenated form. Mrs Croxford's 'personal, emotive and one-sided' criticisms of her ex-husband on the website were having a knock-on effect on her and had caused 'anxiety and distress' to her two children, she told Nominet expert, Andrew Clinton. She claimed the domain name had been 'deliberately selected in bad faith' and was being used by Mrs Croxford as part of a 'campaign' against her ex-husband 'to mislead members of the public and attract them to the website under false pretences'. Mrs Hvidbro-Mitchell said that references to her children's school and home addresses were only removed from the website in response to a police visit to Mrs Croxford's home. Simon and Maiken Hvidbro-Mitchell had hoped Mrs Croxford would be ordered to take down the website The name, which she has borne since 2002 and which is 'unique to her family', was 'a very significant and important part of her personal identity', she argued. But Mrs Croxford, who split from her ex-husband more than a decade ago, denied having done anything wrong and insisted the website was a legitimate means of highlighting his alleged failure to meet child maintenance and court costs orders. The domain has nothing to do with Mrs Hvidbro-Mitchell and that was made clear on the website, she said. The police had taken no action against her and had not warned her or advised her to make any changes to her website. Refusing to transfer the domain name to Mrs Hvidbro-Mitchell, Mr Clinton said: 'There is no free-standing general right of personality, i.e. a right by which a person with a particular name can seek to prevent the use of that name by others. In other words, the mere fact that someone has a particular name is not of itself sufficient to found a cause of action... the name Hvidbro-Mitchell may be very unusual but it does not belong to the complainant in the proprietary sense. The list of people who share that surname may be a very short list, in reality it is probably only her immediate family, but that does not justify the leap in reasoning to the conclusion that it is her unique name over which she has rights. 'It is abundantly clear on the evidence that the target of Mrs Croxford's wrath was not, in fact, the complainant at all; it was her husband, who shares the same surname. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mrs Hvidbro-Mitchell has rights in a name which is identical or similar to the domain name. Mrs Hvidbro-Mitchell's case having fallen at the first hurdle, Mr Clinton said it was unnecessary for him to decide whether the domain name was an 'abusive registration' in Mrs Croxford's hands. In reaching its decision, Nominet looked at previous cases over the issue of rights in personal names that have been registered as trade marks. They include the following: laurenluke.co.uk A make-up tutor and supplier using her own name to trade. She built up a reputation with her business and it was therefore deemed appropriate that she had trademark rights to her name. bjornborg.co.uk Two complaints were received including one that pointed out that a number of registered trademarks use the name Björn Borg. fayed.co.uk Lawyers acting for Mohamed Al Fayed contacted Nominet after the domain was registered by a man called Chris Holland. When they contacted Mr Holland directly he responded saying: 'Thank you for your email and letter regarding the domain name fayed.co.uk. Although we would have loved to have been able to simply donate this domain to your truly dreadful and odious client I regret to inform you that we have recently sold this domain. Attempts were made to contact a Mr Fayed, but Nominet was not convinced he existed and ruled that 'the trademarks and the "alfayed" domain names are held by Harrods'.