logo

Archive for the ‘UDRP’ Category

Panel tells Alcohol Monitoring Systems to SCRAM

Thursday, April 18th, 2013

In a recent domain name dispute over the domain www.SCRAM.com a single member panel denied a request to transfer. See Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc.v. Peter Stranney (Nat. Arb. Forum FA 1488482, April 11, 2013). Complainant, offering continuous alcohol monitoring systems and operates a domain located at www.alcoholmonitoring.com. Complainant is the owner of the trademark SCRAM with rights dating back to at least 2003. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain is not functioning site is a sample word press site which is not active and is not used as a commercial website only as a placeholder. Complainant also noted that the respondent offered to sell the domain for approximately $40,000 pursuant to an invitation to sell the domain name. The Respondent provided a defense and response to the allegations noting that the disputed domain name incorporates a generic term and therefore is not exclusive to the trademark holder. The Panel found that the respondent is the sole owner of a business located in the UK. The Respondent also has experience in web development and online marketing and acquired the domain in January 2007 for approximately $6000. The Panel found that Respondent indicated an intention to focus the disputed domain on development for a traveling business to be launched in approximately August or September 2013

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1)  the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2)  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3)  the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the panel noted that the respondent did not oppose complainants claim to its trademark rights. The panel explained that complainant only valid registered trademark and that it was identical or confusingly similar to the demeaning. Therefore the panel found that this factor have been met by complainant.

Regarding the second element rights or legitimate interests, the panel found the complainant made a prima facie case the respondent lack rights religion interest in the domain name. If you’ve the evidence however the Panel found that respondent met the shifted burden and demonstrated that he did have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under the policy section 4(a)(ii) and 4(c). The Panel noted that prior to any notification of the dispute that the Respondent made preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent’s materials revealed that he developed a business plan for the opportunity to advertise goods and services for people wishing to travel to particular destinations within the UK. The business plan provided details regarding Respondent’s preparation of the domain with that purpose. For those reasons the Panel found the Complainants second prong allegations failed.

Despite the fact that Complainant failed to meet the second prong the Panel still chose to review the third prong of elements regarding registration in use in bad faith. The Panel noted that “scram” is a generic term and that transferring such a generic term for value is not bad faith unless the registration was undertaken with the intent of selling it to a Complainant or its competitor. The Panel noted that generic domain names possess intrinsic value that for all intents and purposes exceed the cost of registration. For those reasons the Panel noted that scram as a generic term has intrinsic value that can go beyond on the cost of registration. Accordingly the Panel found the Complainant failed to satisfy the sprung as well.

The Panel also reviewed an allegation of the first domain name hijacking but found that there was no evidence of reversed meaning hijacking in this instant case. The Panel noted there was no evidence of harassment or similar conduct by Complainant in lieu of knowledge of Respondents rights or legitimate interests.

As a result, the Panel denied Complainant’s request to transfer the disputed domain.

CAESARS Palace Las Vegas “Loses” to Thailand Massage Parlor

Wednesday, August 8th, 2012

In a recent domain name dispute over the domain, www.CaesarsEntertainment.com, a single member Panel denied a request to transfer, mainly on procedural grounds. Caesars World, Inc. v. P.T.Complex Co.,Ltd (Nat. Arb. Forum FA1446942, 7, 2012). Complainant Casears World, Inc.  is the owner of the well known Caesars Palace Casino in Las Vegas. Complainant operates a domain at  www.CaesarsPalace.com. Complainant also has long standing rights to a trademark CAESARS dating back to 1964 (Reg. 763,255) Complainant also claims rights to a Thailand Trademark Registration No. Kor84377 from 1988. Respondent operates a well-known massage parlor in Thailand and claims use of the name CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT since 1997. The disputed domain was registered on May 28, 2001.

The parties are not strangers to each other when it comes to legal battles. The parties engaged each other in disputes with The Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court in Thailand (hereinafter the IP and IT Court). Complainant claims that the court cancelled Respondents registrations to two infringing design marks, including a finding of bad faith against Respondent. Respondent claims that Complainant’s attempt to challenge the CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT mark was denied by the IP and IT Court. Then in 2008 Complainant filed a trademark action in Thailand against respondent. An initial decision was rendered in January 2012. Both parties have appealed the decision and a stay was entered regarding the initial decision..

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

Under that concept the Panel made the following observations and findings:

The UDRP Panels are dependant on the completeness and accuracy of the evidence and information supplied by the parties. A complainant must certify in its complaint inter alia that “[…] the information is to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge complete and accurate […]”, See the Rules 3 (b)(xiv). The Complainant of this case has made such a certification. The Panel finds that the Complainant, already having appealed the decision of the IP and IT Court, had knowledge of the indefinite status of the Court’s decision when filing the Complaint. See Respondent’s Annexes 3-4. The Panel also finds that the Complainant of this case, despite this knowledge, has omitted to inform the Panel that the IP and IT Court’s decision cited and adduced had not obtained final force and effect. If the judgment of the referred litigation in Thailand would have been final, it may have presented decisive reasons for the Panel. Therefore, and notwithstanding its certification, the Complainant has in its Complaint not presented complete and accurate information. The Panel finds this acting of the Complainant in itself a reason to deny the Complaint.

As a result, the Panel terminated the dispute without a decision on the merits of the case.

ASSURANT Unable to Explain Why “Med” is Descriptive

Monday, August 6th, 2012

In a recent domain name dispute over the domain, www.medasurant.com, a single member Panel  denied a request to transfer. See Assurant, Inc. v. ICS INC. (Nat. Arb. Forum FA1447017, July 30, 2012). Complainant Assurant is a well known insurance products provider who operates a domain at  www.assurant.com. Complainant also has long standing rights to a trademark ASSURANT (Reg. 2,543,367, registered on February 26, 2002.) Complainant’s registration claims right dating back to 1999. The disputed domain was registered on February 1, 2012. Respondent did not respond to the dispute.


Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1)  the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2)  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3)  the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Regarding the first element, Complainant argued that the disputed domain features a misspelling of Complainant’s mark by dropping the second letter “s” and adding the generic word “med.” The Panel noted that Complainant failed to show or even allege why the term “med” was descriptive with respect to the insurance and financial services covered by the ASSURANT mark. In fact, the Panel gave Complainant an opportunity to provide supplement arguments and evidence. Regardless, the Panel found that Complainant still failed to provide any arguments or evidence regarding the connection of the term “med” and Complainant’s services. As a result, the Panel found that Complainant was unable to satisfy ¶4(a)(i) of the Policy.

As a result, the Panel DENIED Complaint’s request to get the disputed domain.

SHA Wellness Clinic Foolishly Attempts to use the UDRP

Friday, August 3rd, 2012

In a recent domain name dispute over the domain, www.sha.com, a three member Panel not only  denied a request to transfer but slammed the Complainant for improperly bringing the dispute in the first place. See Albir Hills Resort, S.A. v. Telepathy, Inc. WIPO Case No. D2012-0997, August 3, 2012). Complainant Albir Hills Resort, S.A. owns a few Community Trademarks and an International Trademark for the mark SHA relating to a host of different goods and services. Complainant owns the domains www.shawellnessclinic.es and www.shawellnessclinic.com.The disputed domain was registered on August 7, 1998. Respondent, Telepathy, Inc., owns over 3,000 three letter dot com domain names.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1)  the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2)  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3)  the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element the Panel noted that Complaint had a valid trademark for SHA and that the domain name was identical under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Trhe crux of the case was focused on the remainder of the elements.

The Panel’s discussion of the second element began with a review of some relevant UDRP precedent.

It is also well established that a respondent may well have a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based solely on the appeal of a commonly used descriptive phrase, even where the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark of a complainant, provided that the domain name was registered because of its attraction as a descriptive phrase comprising dictionary words and not because of its value as a trademark and further provided that the website to which the domain name resolves is then used to post links that are relevant only to the common meaning of the phrase comprising dictionary words.

The Panel noted that the disputed domain was registered in 1998, which was many years prior to the existence of Complainant’s company and trademark rights. Further it noted there was no evidence that Respondent had any intention to target Complainant or its Mark. As a result, the Panel found that Respondent in fact had a right or legitimate interest in the domain.

Moving to the final element, the Panel continued with the factual analysis, again noting the disparity between Respondent’s domain registration and Complainant’s rights. Specifically, the Panel noted that  Complainant’s mark SHA was filed for in 2006 and the Complainant has not submitted evidence of prior use of its trademark. The Panel took it a step further though, noting that since it was a three letter domain, the result of multiple acronym uses for SHA yielded possibilities such as “Secure Hash Algorithm”, the “Saskatchewan Hockey Association” and the “Society for Historical Archaeology”. Ultimately, the Panel settled on the fact that there was no evidence to establish that Respondent tried to generate confusion with Complainant’s mark and found this factor favored Respondent.

The Panel was not finished yet, since it then turned its attention to the Reverse Domain Name Hijacking claim.

In the case at hand, the registration date of the disputed domain name precedes the dates of the Complainants’ relevant trademark registrations and the evidence shows that the disputed domain name has been used as part of a bona fide business of the Respondent, which owns over 1000 three-letter-domains in its domain name portfolio. The Panel considers that the Complainant is represented by an attorney who should have appreciated that the Complaint could not succeed in the present proceeding since the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent eight years prior to filing the trademark applications for SHA. Moreover, the Complainant’s representative has misconceived the nature and the purpose of the Policy according to which the Complaint was brought.

The Panel found Complainant’s assertion of 15 years of market presence to be misleading since the evidence instead pointed to the fact that Complainant opened in 2008 and the mark SHA was not even filed until 2006.

As a result, the Panel DENIED Complaint’s request to get the disputed domain. The Panel additionally found that Complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.

No Party for PARTY BOOTHS!

Friday, August 12th, 2011

In a recent domain name dispute decision, Party Booths, LLC v. Cornelius Angsuco (Nat. Arb. Forum, FA1398420 August 10, 2011) a single member panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.envypartybooths.com.  Complainant, Party Booths, LLC, owns the PARTYBOOTHS mark which it uses in connection with its photo booth rental services. Complainant also maintains a website at www.partybooths.com. The disputed domain was registered on September 9, 2009, prior to the January 13, 2010 filing date of Complainant’s trademark application.  Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1)  the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2)  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3)  the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel found that Complainant established rights  in the PARTYBOOTHS mark and that the domain name was confusingly similar. Moving to the second element, the Panel found that respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Regarding the offering of bona fide goods or services, the Panel explained:

The <envypartybooths.com> domain name resolves to a website whichsolicits photo booth rentals. This is precisely the same service which Complainant offers through its own website. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

For these reasons, the Panel found that the Respondent did not have a legitimate interest in the domain. Moving to the final element, bad faith registration and use, the Panel recognized that the disputed domain was registered prior to the filing date and registration of the trademark. The Panel went further to explain:

Although Complainant claims that the mark had been used prior to the registration of the <envypartybooths.com> domain name, Complainant provides no evidence of such use and fails to state in what way it was used prior to its filing with the USPTO. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent could not have registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because its registration of the disputed domain name predated the registration of Complainant’s mark.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant did not satisfy all three elements and DENIED the request to transfer the domain.

American Express Loses UDRP Based on Inadequate “Bad Faith” Arguments

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

In a recent domain name dispute over the domain, www.syncard.com, a single member Panel let American Express “Leave Home Without It” and denied a request to transfer a purported cybersquatters domain. See American Express Marketing & Development Corp. v. Admin Support / SEOMarketing.org (Nat. Arb. Forum FA1392387, July 14, 2011). American Express needs no introduction, so let’s skip ahead to the important stuff. ( If you want to know more about AMEX, here is a link to their website www.americanexpress.com). American Express owns the mark ZYNC CARD (Reg. No. 3,848,858, issued on September 14, 2010). The disputed domain was registered on February 26, 2011. Respondent failed to submit a Response.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel found that the disputed domain simply differed from the mark by deleting the letter “c” from the domain. For this reason, the Panel found that the domain was confusingly similar to American Express’ mark.

Moving onto the second prong, rights or legitimate interests, the Panel declined to review this element, citing to a case which essentially held that a failure to prove any one element was fatal. Therefore, the remainder of the analysis focused on the third prong, registration and use in bad faith. The Panel states its position best:

The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to sufficiently allege a use consonant with a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant has not only failed to allege a use that would constitute bad faith but has failed to allege any use whatsoever. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

As a result, the Panel DENIED Complaint American Express’ request to get the disputed domain.

P90X Guarantees Results…Just Not These Kind of Results

Thursday, May 5th, 2011

In the recent domain name dispute of Beachbody, LLC v. Gregg Gillies (WIPO Case No. D2011-0358, April 21, 2011) a single member panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.p90xworkoutschedule.com. The disputed domain was registered on June 11, 2009 and Respondent provided a brief response which included the following statement:

There is no confusion or misrepresentation on the site as to whether it’s the original p90x site or owned by Beach Body, LLC. It clearly gives a review of the product (p90x), which I own, and in fact, even gives a positive review, so I clearly not trying to harm Beach Body or alter sales of p90x in a negative way. I use the site to share my experiences with p90x and to specifically talk about its workout schedule. I don’t pretend to be an official site, nor do I try and confuse anyone about that fact.

Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations in the U.S. and internationally related to its P90X mark. Complainant maintains a website at www.beachbody.com and also owns the domain www.p90x.com, which is forward to its main site.

Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP ICANN Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that Disputed Domain Name should be cancelled or transferred. (i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; (iii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element the Panel noted that the “addition of a generic or highly descriptive term does not serve to distinguish between the mark of the complainant and the disputed domain name.” The Panel ultimately found that the domain was confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. In addressing the second element, the Panel explained that Respondent’s name has no correlation to the disputed domain and there is no evidence of authorization or a license. However, the Panel refrained from making its decision on this prong, noting that the third prong would address concerns of the case.

The third prong, registration and use in bad faith, resulted in the most detailed analysis for this Panel. The Panel made the following observation about Complainant’s pleadings:

The heart of the Complainant’s claim in these proceedings is that, under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to draw people to its site for the purpose of the promoting the e-book “Truth About Six Pack Abs.” However, the Complainant has not provided any explicit evidentiary support for this claim, other than to refer generally to Respondent’s website accessible through the Disputed Domain Name. The Complaint does not set out where on the website the Respondent has been promoting the e-book “Truth About Six Pack Abs.” Review by the Panel of the exhibits and other materials provided by the Complainant in the Complaint did not disclose any explicit reference to the promotion and sale of the e-book “Truth About Six Pack Abs.”

As a result, the Panel issued an Administrative Procedural Order seeking additional evidence and information, to which Complainant simply restated its prior allegations and failed to provide additional evidence. The Panel also noted that Respondent provided a disclaimer on the disputed domain as the lack of affiliation. In light of that disclaimer the Panel explained:

However, when there is a disclaimer on the Respondent’s website where there is a colorable argument of legitimate use, and the Complainant has provided no convincing evidence to support its claim of bad faith by the Respondent, such a disclaimer may serve to buttress Respondent’s claim that it has not acted in bad faith. The Panel finds that is the situation here. The Panel further takes note of a number of “Ads by Google” apparently present on the website, amidst Respondent’s described work-out schedule. However, even if these might in some way be indicative of use by the Respondent in bad faith, the Complainant has made no contention or submission whatsoever on this issue. As such, based on the record of the Complaint, the Panel does not find it sufficient to carry the balance in the Complainant’s favor.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant failed to satisfy all three prongs and DENIED the request for transfer.

Grab Your Popcorn…Cinema Drama Unfolds

Monday, February 14th, 2011

In the recent domain name dispute of Prime Pictures LLC v. DigiMedia.com L.P. (WIPO Case No. D2010-1877, February 2, 2011) a three member panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.cinemacity.com. Complainant uses the mark CINEMACITY throughout Lebanon, UAE, Jordan and Syria for movie theaters. Complainant claims rights to a Lebanese registered trademark from 2006. However, as there is some dispute over the facts presented by Complainant , in that there appears to be multiple companies that are related as presented by Complainant. The Panel noted that Complainant failed to adequately identify how these companies are related. Respondent registered the disputed domain on September 24, 1998 and has used the website as a parked page since that time.

 In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel noted that there are serious questions regarding the first element. As noted above, there were multiple companies referred to in Complainants filing. As a result, the Panel explained “More seriously there is no evidence at all that any of these companies is connected with the Complainant, Prime Pictures LLC, or that Prime Pictures LLC has any right in this mark on any other basis.” The Panel chose not to seek additional proof or information from Complainant in light of its findings under the other prongs.

The Panel then reviewed the second element, and found that Respondent did not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain. However, as many of you know, all three of the elements must be found in favor of the Complainant. In moving onto the third element, the Panel made the following findings:

In this case the Complaint contains no evidence of any use of “Cinema City” as a mark or company name prior to September 2005. The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent in September 1998. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith. The third requirement of the UDRP has not been satisfied and the Complaint must therefore be rejected.

Normally the Panels stop their analysis at this point, making findings for Respondent. However, in this case the Respondent claimed Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Panels have ben very reluctant to make such a finding. This Panel made the following findings:

In the present case, the Complaint correctly identified that the Domain Name was registered in 1998. Given that the earliest date of any registration or use of the mark relied upon in the Complaint was in 2005, the registration of the Domain Name could not have been in bad faith on any interpretation of the facts and cases cited in the Complaint….the Panel considers it unlikely that this deficiency was overlooked by the Complainant’s counsel and more probable that it was deliberately ignored in framing the Complaint. In all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

Ultimately, the Panel DENIED the request for transfer and made a finding that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

123INKJETS Didn’t Get the Printout on Evidence

Monday, January 10th, 2011

In the recent domain name dispute of LD Products, Inc. v. Webatopia Marketing Limited (Nat. Arb. Forum FA1360908 Jan, 7, 2011) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.123inkjetx.com. Complainant owns rights to the 123INKJETS mark, which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,212,566 issued February 27, 2007), in connection with online retail store services featuring inkjet printer cartridges, inkjet printer ink, filled inkjet printer ink cartridges, toner, toner cartridges and related accessories. Complainant also asserted common law rights in the 123INKJETS mark dating back to 1999. Complainant maintains a website at www.123inkjets.com. Respondent, registered the disputed domain name on October 19, 2004, which resolves to a click-through website featuring links to Complainant’s competitors.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel only made it through the first element in this case. Since the registration date of the domain predated the registration date for the trademark, Complainant was under an obligation to provide evidence of common law rights to the mark. The Panel explained that Complainant failed to “set forth sufficient evidence supporting” common law rights. It is unclear what evidence, if any was presented by Complainant since the Panel did not elaborate.

In light of the following findings, the Panel explained that Complainant failed to establish the first element. As a result the Panel declined to review the remaining elements. Ultimately, the Panel DENIED the request for transfer.

RUMBERA Loses Based on Domain Registration Six Years Prior to Use

Thursday, January 6th, 2011

In the recent domain name dispute of Pidela Holdings Inc. v. Purple Bucquet / Purple (Nat. Arb. Forum FA1356856, December 31, 2010) a single member panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.rumberanetwork.com. Complainant is a radio and web broadcasting company using the mark RUMBERA NETWORK. Complainant obtained a registered mark in Panama in May 2010. The disputed domain was registered in August 2004. The Respondent did not file a response.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel quickly addressed the first element, noting that the registration was sufficient to establish its rights in the mark. The Panel found that the domain was essentially identical to the mark. Moving onto the second element, the Panel noted that Complainant presented a prima facie case that Respondent lacked any rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Included in the analysis was a review that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain. Additionally, Complainant submitted evidence of screenshots showing the disputed domain containing links to competing products/services. For those reasons, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied the second prong.

The case turned though on the last element. The Panel noted that Complainant provided evidence only of its trademark registration dating back to May 2010. This was a problem for the Panel since the registration of the domain was six years earlier in 2004. For that reason the Panel concluded that the domain could not have been registered in bad faith.

Ultimately the Panel DENIED the request for transfer.

Switch to our mobile site