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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

The domains at issues included <aboutgrupobimbo.com>, <arnoldfillems.com>, <bagelthin.com>, <bagelthins.com>, <bimbobrands.com>, <bimbobreads.com>, <bobolipizza.com>, <bobolipizzacrust.com>, <bobolisauce.com>, <brownberrybreads.com>, <brownberryjr.com>, <coronadocandy.com>, <entenmannscakes.com>, <entenmannscookies.com>, <entenmannsdonuts.com>, <fillems.com>, <franciscobreads.com>, <freihofersbread.com>, <laracookies.com>, <oldcountrybreads.com>, <oroweatbread.com>, <sandwichthin.com>, <stroehmannbread.com>, <tiarosatortilla.com> and <tiarosatortillas.com>.

The Panel explained that Grupo Bimbo is a large and internationally known baking company. and that the other Complainants appeared to be subsidiaries. Each of the Complainants individually owned trademark registrations and rights in one or more trademarks. The marks being claimed included GRUPO BIMBO, BIMBO, TIA ROSA, CORONADO, LARA, SANDWICH THINS, BROWNBERRY, FILL `EMS, BOBOLI, ENTENMANN’S, FREIHOFER’S, STROEHMANN, FRANCISCO, OLD COUNTRY, and OROWEAT.

Respondent filed a response which did not address the merits of the case, but the Panel explained that Respondent instead asserts that the process provided for under the UDRP is corrupt and inherently unfair in that “it favors the haves and unfairly penalizes and punishes the have nots”. The Respondent states that he does not recognize “the authority of WIPO or any other would be ‘World Policing Organization’”, and that he is certain his domain names “will be stolen” by the Complainants and their attorneys.

The remainder of the decision focused on the singular procedural issue of whether or not multiple complainants in this case was appropriate. The Panel explained:

The Policy and the Rules do not expressly contemplate the consolidation of multiple complainants (or respondents) in a unitary administrative proceeding, and generally speak in singular terms of a “complainant” when referring to proceedings under the Policy. This Panel, along with a number of WIPO Panels, nonetheless has concluded that the use of the singular “complainant” in the Policy and Rules was not meant to preclude multiple legal persons in appropriate circumstances from jointly seeking relief in a single administrative proceeding under the Policy.

The Panel recognized that prior Panels have allowed consolidation and that a “test” has been created for the determination of whether it is appropriate. The factors to be analyzed for consolidation are as follows:

(1) Number of complainants; (2) Number of domain names; (3) Voluminous filings; (4) Novel, difficult or largely untested issues; and (5) Potential for different outcomes for domain name disputes depending on nature of rights asserted.

The Panel reviewed these factors and found that there were too many overriding procedural issues to efficiently decide the case on its merits. For instance the Panel explained:

As a result, there appear to be different issues to be addressed under the first element of the Policy involving the disputed domain names <bagelthins.com> and <bagelthin.com> arising from the differing nature of the rights asserted by the Complainants in BAGEL THINS. In addition the descriptiveness question referred to above may also create the potential for different outcomes with respect to these disputed domain names under the second or third elements of the Policy. And, as noted earlier, <bagelthins.com> initially was used by the Respondent in a way that it appears the other disputed domain names have not been used. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel after careful consideration is not persuaded that the Complainants have made a sufficient showing to permit consolidation of the multiple complainants involved here. The Panel is concerned among other things that a multiplicity of issues could render the summary and expedited dispute resolution process envisioned by the Policy inefficient or ineffective, or even raise issues concerning fairness and equity.

Ultimately the Panel DENIED the request for transfer, but did so without prejudice, permitting the Complainants to re-file individually.

According to paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that: (i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel quickly addressed the first element, noting that the domain was identical to Complainant’s mark. The case turned on the second prong. The Panel noted that Complainant failed to present evidence demonstrating business in the U.S. prior to the Respondent’s registration of the domain. Additionally the Panel notes there was nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent’s intention to target Complainant’s brand. The Panel further rejected any contention that there has been confusion based upon a lack of evidence presented.

The Panel did not address the third prong in light of finding that Respondent established rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Ultimately the Panel DENIED the request for transfer.

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel found that Complainant established the first prong, since the essence of the registred mark was incorporated into the domain. In addressing the second prong the Panel noted that Respondent alleged the domain was generic or at least descriptive. The Panel found that the word “xpand” was descriptive as a short hand for the word “expand.” The Panel recognized the commercial value of descriptive words, which when such domains are offered for sale can be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The case ultimately seemed to weigh heavily on the third prong, wherein the Panel explained:

The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in 2003. The Complainant did not use the XpanD Mark until September 2006, more than three years after the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant did not provide any explanation as to how the Respondent could possibly have been aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name.

After making a finding that Complainant failed to prove all three elements, the Panel moved its attention to Respondent’s request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Panel explained:

In the present case, the Complainant did not provide any explanation as to how the Respondent could possibly have been aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name, which occurred more than three years before the Complainant started using its XpanD Mark. The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.

Ultimately the Panel DENIED the request for Transfer.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the 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 reviewed the elements and found that the domain was confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. In addressing the second element the Panel made the following observations:

Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), use of a domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods is sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of ¶ 4(a)(ii).  Respondent operated an online store using the disputed domain name for at least eight and a half years, beginning four months prior to Complainant’s first use of the ENERGYFIX mark and twenty-one months prior to the registration of that mark.  By doing so, Respondent established his rights and legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

In addressing the third element, bad faith, the Panel continued its observations that no bad faith could have existed in light of the earlier registration of the domain compared with the first use of the mark.

The case became interesting with the Panel’s discussion regarding Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Panel noted:

The Panel is troubled by Complainant’s attempt to secure <energyfix.com>, a domain name that was registered and used to sell goods for months before Complainant’s first use of the ENERGYFIX mark.  A simple WHOIS search would have informed Complainant that the disputed domain name had been registered seven months before her first use of the ENERGYFIX mark and therefore could not have been registered in bad faith.  It is also evident from the Complaint that Complainant was aware that Respondent was selling goods using the disputed domain name, one of the activities that gives rise to rights and legitimate interests in a domain name….A long delay in filing a complaint can also give rise to an inference that a complainant with a flawed claim knew that it had a flawed claim, providing further support for a finding of bad faith.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant failed to prove the elements and made a finding that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.