logo

Posts Tagged ‘Bad Faith’

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.

Gay Porn Site Target of Typosquatting

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

It should come as no surprise that adult web sites are targeted for cybersquatting. In the recent domain name dispute of Blu Media Inc. v. Transure Enterprise Ltd c/o Host Master FA1307892 (Nat. Arb. Forum, March 30, 2010) a single member panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.justsuboys.com. Complainant uses its domain www.justusboys.com as a for profit adult website. The domain was originally launched in 2002, although complainant did not purchase it until January 2010. Respondent registered the disputed domain in October 2009.  Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint.

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 Complainant does not have a registration for the mark JUSTUSBOYS.COM.  Thus the Panel was forced to determine if the Complainant’s mark had established secondary meaning.

In support of its contention Complainant has submitted evidence of awards received for its e-magazine as well as critic reviews of its website and magazine.  Complainant further provides evidence of high “Alexa” rankings for the number of visitors to its website.  The Panel finds that Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to show it has common law rights in the JUSTUSBOYS.COM mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through continuous and extensive commercial use before Respondent registered the disputed domain name.

The Panel found that the disputed domain was confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) had been satisfied

Moving to the second element, the Panel noted that Complainant submitted evidence sufficient for a showing and establishment of a prima facie case. Regardless the Panel chose to review the evidence presented. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain. Additionally, the disputed domain was offering third party links to competing adult oriented web sites. “The Panel finds that Respondent’s reliance on typosquatting to create a confusingly similar disputed domain name, where it receives referral fees to websites in competition with Complainant is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).” Also, Complainant put forth evidence that Respondent was seeking to sell the disputed domain publicly and to Complainant. Lastly, the Panel remarked that the domain was a typosquatted version of the mark. For all these reasons, the Panel found that Respondent lacked any rights or legitimate interests in the domain, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) had been satisfied

In addressing the final element, the Panel began by examining Respondent offer to sell the domain for $5,000.00 to Complainant. “The Panel finds that Respondent’s general listing of the disputed domain name for sale, as well as its attempts to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for amounts in excess of its initial costs are evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).” The Panel also found that Respondent intentionally disrupted Complainant’s business. Additionally, the Panel found that the use of competitive third party links for financial gain was evidence of bad faith registration and use. Ultimately, the Panel ruled  that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) had been satisfied            

After review of all the elements the Panel ruled that Complainant met all three and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

Japanese Beer ASAHI Chugs One After Successful Cybersquatting Win

Friday, January 8th, 2010

        asahi-beer

In the recent cybersquatting action, Asahi Breweries Ltd. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., Demand Domains, Inc. WIPO D2009-1481 (December 25, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.asahibeer.com. Complainant has used the mark ASAHI for beer since 1892 and maintains a domain at www.asahibeerusa.com. The disputed domain was registered in 1998 and Respondent provided a Response to the Complaint.

Under paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy, in order to obtain the remedy of transfer of the disputed domain name, Complainant must prove (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.

Respondent requested that the decision be dismissed and agreed to transfer the domain to Complainant. Respondent sought the Panel to not render a decision in light of its agreement to transfer, but the Panel explained that Complainant’s failure to accept the offer of settlement under paragraph 17 of the Rules, it would proceed with the decision.

In addressing the first element, the Panel explained that the long standing rights to the ASAHI mark were established and that the domain was identical and confusingly similar to the domain. As a result the Panel found Complainant proved this element.

Moving to the second element, the Panel explained that Complainant made a prima facie case. The Panel found that Respondent did not use the web site for any legitimate, bona fide or non-commercial purpose. The Panel found that Complainant satisfied this element as well.

The final element, bad faith, provided more review by the Panel. The Panel found that the sponsored links to third party web sites was evidence of bad faith registration and use. Respondent argued that its offer to transfer was evidence to demonstrate its good faith. The Panel dismissed this argument noting recent cases and explained:

In some recent cases respondents have taken advantage of complainants, who in good faith had accepted their offers of transfer to settle disputes. The respondents in such cases typically put forward a proposal to transfer the domain name, with a specific request that there should be no finding of bad faith. It appears, in some of those cases, the requests for settlement were only a ploy to gain additional time in order to continue deriving the revenue generated from the disputed domain names and were apparently not genuine offers of settlement. The cases then had to be reinstituted by the complainant, while the respondent had managed to gain further time generating pay-per-click revenue in the guise of making an offer of settlement.

The Panel went further to note that bad faith had been found in cases where inadvertent registration through semi-automated processes occurred. The Panel also found that the number of cases Respondent had been involved in showed a consistent pattern and was additional proof of bad faith.

The Panel found that ASAHI proved all three elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

JETPAY Soars Above The Competition With Domain Win

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

jetpay_logo

In the recent cybersquatting action JetPay, LLC v. JetyPayments FA1294887 (Nat. Arb. Forum, January 6, 2010) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.jetypay.com. Complainant offers credit card and check authorization processing services since 2000 and maintains a web site a www.jetpay.com. Complainant holds a trademark registration for the JETPAY mark. Respondent registered the disputed domain in December 2007 and failed to respond to the complaint.

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 Complainant established its rights in the JETPAY mark pursuant to the Policy. Additionally, the Panel found that Complainant provided sufficient evidence of common law rights and secondary meaning for the mark dating back to 2000. A comparison of the mark with the disputed domain showed that Respondent merely added the letter “y” in the middle. As a result, the Panel found this to be confusingly similar.

Moving to the second element, the Panel explained that Complainant set forth a prima facie case, shifting the burden to Respondent. Interstingly the Panel found that although Respondent appeared to be commonly known by the disputed domain, it still lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain. The Panel explained that Respondnet’s use of the domain, namely selling goods or services similar to Complainant’s was not a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommerical use. As a result, the Panel noted Complainant satisfied this element.

The last element, bad faith, was also favorable to Complainant. The Panel explained the disputed domain linked internet users to a website offering similar products and services as those of Complainant. This was found to be bad faith under the Policy. Additionally, the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract users for profit, creates a strong likelihood of confusion, thus also being bad faith.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all three elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

Bad Faith Use, Despite Good Faith Registration, Causes Transfer

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

                parvi

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Ville de Paris v. Jeff Walter WIPO D2009-1278, November 19, 2009, a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.parvi.org. Complainant is the City of Paris, France, who claims ownership of two French trademark registrations from 2002 for PARVI (for communications by computer terminals) and PARVI PARIS VILLE NUMERIQUE (for computerized file management and communications by computer terminals). Respondent registered the disputed domain in June 2006. The background story of this case involves a series of communications between the parties regarding Respondent’s use and continued ownership of the domain. Essentially, the Respondent contended he registered the domain with no knowledge of Paris’ PARVI marks and instead picked the word because it meant “small” in Latin and was to be used for a social networking site. Paris even acknowledged that he lacked the intention of causing confusion when he registered the domain. Apparently, sometime later Respondent then changed his mind and was going to run a web site dedicated to open source software projects. The resulting domain dispute occurred.

Generally, 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 the instant case however, the Panel took some liberties and has made some interesting interpretations of the Policy and prior case decisions.

First, the Panel quickly dispelled with the first element, noting that it was identical to Paris’ PARVI trademark. The Panel also quickly rolled through the second element, noting that the word parvi is not Latin for small, but instead the correct word is parvus. The Panel found that Respondent failed to show demonstrable preparations for the domain and thus lacked any rights or legitimate interests.

The Panel spent most of the decision discussing the third element, registration and use in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a)(iii) states that Complainant must prove that Respondent’s “domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” The Panel explained that recently many decisions have reviewed the interpretation of this policy paragraph to mean something slightly different then it has been applied. The Panel explained:

The Policy expressly states that the Paragraph 4(b) scenarios are “without limitation” – that is, the Policy makes clear that there can be other scenarios that are also evidence of registration and use in bad faith. It follows, therefore, that the Policy expressly recognizes that the Paragraph 4(a)(iii) requirement of bad faith can, in certain circumstances, be satisfied where the respondent has used the domain name in bad faith, even though the respondent may not have been acting in bad faith at the time of acquisition of the domain name.

The Panel attempted to justify its findings, based upon a hypotheical:

There seems no reason in logic or in principle why the availability of redress should be confined to situations where bad faith is present at the time of acquisition of the domain name. To limit the trademark owner’s redress in this way would result in outcomes that make no sense. In particular, it would mean that even the most damaging abuse of a trademark right through the most egregious bad faith use of a domain name would be immune from remedy under the Policy so long as the registrant was not acting in bad faith when the domain name was acquired. It would, in short, give a “green light” to good faith domain name registrants to later abusively use their domain names, safe in the knowledge that any such bad faith use could not provide the basis for a successful action under the Policy.

The Panel found that Respodent probably did not register the disputed domain with the intention of benefitting from Pari’s PARVI mark, but this did not end the decision.

The Respondent’s decision to change the intended use of the disputed domain name to a use that could cause confusion with, and disruption to, the Complainant’s activities, and the Respondent’s demand that the Complainant provide it with an option to acquire the Complainant’s domain names, were actions by which the Respondent sought to use its registration of the disputed domain name to derive a benefit from the Complainant’s trademark.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all three elements, and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

Life Extension Foundation Wins Its Domain

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Life Extension Foundation, Inc. v. PHD Prime Health Direct Limited (FA1289603, Nat. Arb. Forum, November 25, 2009) a three member Panel agreed to transfer the domain www.lifeextensionfoundation.com to Complainant. Life Extension Foundation maintains web sites at www.lef.org and www.lifeextension.com. As their web site states:

The Life Extension Foundation is the world’s largest organization dedicated to finding scientific methods for addressing disease, aging, and death. The Life Extension Foundation is a non-profit group that funds pioneering scientific research aimed at achieving an indefinitely extended healthy human lifespan. The fruits of this research are used to develop novel disease prevention and treatment protocols.

 Our law firm represented Life Extension Foundation in this dispute, so we will refrain from providing our normal commentary. If you would like to know more details please read the decision (here).

MICHELIN Rolls Away With A Win.

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

    MichelinLogo

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Michelin North America, Inc. v. Bobbi Goldfinch c/o Gold finch enterprise FA1285536 (Nat. Arb. Forum, November 2, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.michelintires.org. Complainant is the well known manufacturer of tires, with sales in nearly 170 countries. Complainant owns a trademark for MICHELIN since 1970. 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: (i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel noted that the disputed domain name incorporated all of the MICHELIN trademark and added the descriptive term tires. This addition increased the likelihood of confusion since it related directly to Michelin’s products. The Panel noted that the affixation of a generic top-level domain was functional and had no effect as well. The Panel found Michelin satisfied this element.

Moving to the second element, the Panel noted that Michelin made a prima facie case, which shifted the burden to Respondent. However, since Respondent did not present a defense, the Panel could have chosen to find in favor of Complainant and move on, but instead the Panel chose to review the record. The Panel noted that the disputed domain resolved to a site showing Complainant’s logo and providing click-through links to Michelin’s competitors. The Panel found this was not bona fide offering of goods or services. Additionally the Whois information showed that Respondent was not commonly known by the name. For these reasons the Panel found that Michelin satisfied this element also.

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel found that Respondent’s use of a web site with click-through links to divert business satisfied this element. Additionally, those click-through links were presumed to receive click-through fees, capitalizing on Michelin’s mark. The Panel found that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Michelin satisfied all three elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

Re-Filed Case…Different Result

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

                 koc

In the recent domain name dispute Koç Holding A.S. v. KEEP B.T. (WIPO D2009-0938, August 31, 2009) a single member arbitrator was faced with a dispute over the domain www.koc.com. As the decision points out, this appears to be re-filed case, after the complainant lost a previous decision back in December 2000 and decided in March 2001. See Koç Holding A.S. v. MarketWeb A.S., WIPO Case No. D2000-1764. In that prior decision Complainant failed to establish trademark rights. This complaint was now re-filed based on new evidence, including a trademark registration and subsequent bad acts. Although the rules don’t specifically address a re-hearing, many Panels have permitted it. WIPO has provided a short summary consensus view of re-filed cases:

A refiled case involves the complainant submitting a second complaint involving the same domain name(s) and the same respondent(s) as in an earlier complaint that had been denied. A refiled case may only be accepted in limited circumstances. These circumstances include when the complainant establishes in the complaint that relevant new actions have occurred since the original decision, or that a breach of natural justice or of due process has occurred, or that there was other serious misconduct by the panel or the parties in the original case (such as perjured evidence). A refiled complaint will also be accepted if it includes newly presented evidence that was unavailable to the complainant during the original case.

This Panel found there was sufficient evidence and allegations to support a re-filed case. Complainant is one of Turkey’s top industrial conglomerates, and has been around since 1926. It is ranked among the largest 200 companies in the world, and maintains a web site at www.koc.com.tr. The disputed domain was registered on August 12, 1997. Complainant owns a trademark registration for the KOC mark, with registration date of 2002, but with rights relating back to 1926.

In addressing the elements, the Panel made the following observations. First, with respect to whether the domina is identical or confusingly similar, the Panel explained that since Complainant proved it registered KOC as a trademark, there was no need for the Panel to consider the common law rights. Next, the Panel addressed whether Respondent had any rights or legitimate interests in the domain. The Panel found that Respondent was unable to show any rights or legitimate interests and that Complainant sufficiently presented a prima facie case. Third the Panel reviewed whether the domain was registered in bad faith. Complaianint submitted new allegations of bad faith, which included:

The Respondent received news and documents that were intended for the Complainant. After the previous case between the parties the Respondent was supposed to return all that was received to the Complainant but never did. The Respondent sent an e-mail that blackmailed the Complainant. The Complainant initiated legal proceedings which concluded in the Complainant’s favour….

The Panel merely states this information is germane to the instant decision, but does not provide additional analysis. Instead, the Panel found that due to the size of Complainant at the time of the registration of the disputed domain, and since Respondent also resided in Turkey, then Respondent must have known about Complainant. The Respondent’s passive holding of an inactive web site was also troubling to the Panel.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all the elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

KILLER BROWNIE Delivers A Death Blow

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

         killerbrownie

In the recent domain name dispute of Dorothy Lane Market v. Tony Chang FA1271237 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 18, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.killerbrownie.com. Complainant markets and sells a multilayed brownie called the KILLER BROWNIE. The maintain a web site at www.dorothylane.com and have a federal trademark registration for KILLER BROWNIE with rights dating back to at least 1988. Respondent registered the disputed domain in September 2006 and failed to respond to the dispute.

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 noted that the disputed domain contained all of complainant’s mark, with the omission of the space between the words and the addition of the generic top level domain “.com” The Panel found the domain was identical to Complainant’s mark.

Moving onto the second element, the Panel explained that although Complainant had shown a prima facie case, it would still review the record. The disputed domain resolved to a web site containing Respondent’s personal biography and resume. The Panel found “that Respondent’s use of the identical <killerbrownie.com> domain name, to divert Internet users to a website that is unrelated to Complainant’s KILLER BROWNIE mark, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), respectively.” The Panel also noted that Respondent was not commonly know by the disputed domain.

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel explained that under the Policy, “that it may look beyond the Policy ¶ 4(b) elements while considering a Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) analysis, and may find bad faith registration and use from the totality of the circumstances under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).” The Panel found that there appeared to be no commercial use of the site, but that the disputed domain lends itself to the impression that there was a goal of confusion.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all elements of the Policy and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

DefendMyDomain Commentary: At first blush, it is unclear why the Panel did not view Respondent’s use of a personal web site as fair use. Actual review of the disputed site may better answer that question. For instance, the site was purportedly registered by Respondent in 2006 yet it has a “2000-2008″ copyright notification on the site. Also it lists a different domain at the bottom, www.eliminated.org, which has the identical information. Therefore one can only assume there was never an intention to actually use the site as a blog, despite wording on the site to the contrary. Since the Panel decision did not mention any of these facts we cannot assume they were actually considered. If they weren’t considered, then we have concerns about the potential implications of this decision. As usual the world of domain disputes remains uncertain.

ABC Liquors Also Wins Against Texas International Property Associates

Friday, July 31st, 2009

In the recent domain name dispute decision of ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates – NA NA FA1266499 (Nat. Arb. Forum, July 28, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.abcfinewinesandspirits.com. Complainant is the well known retail store for all things alcohol, including beer, wine and liquor. ABC Liquors maintains a web site at www.abcfws.com. Respondent is the infamous domainer who has over 100 adverse decisions through the UDRP process. Anyone who has tried to find the Whois information using simple Whois search tools for domains owned by Respondent has likely hit the dead end known as Compana LLC. We have previously blogged about this Respondent, but it has been a while, so we figured this would be a good time to revisit a case with this Respondent.

On a procedural level, Respondent argued that it agreed to the transfer of the domain and provided three possible ways which a Panel could proceed which include:

(i) to grant the relief requested by the Complainant on the basis of the Respondent’s consent without reviewing the facts supporting the claims (ii) to find that consent to transfer means that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) are deemed to be satisfied, and so transfer should be ordered on this basis or (iii)  to proceed to consider whether on the evidence the three elements of paragraph 4(a) are satisfied because the Respondent’s offer to transfer is not an admission of the Complainant’s right, or because there is some reason to doubt the genuineness of the Respondent’s consent.

The Panel pointed out that Respondent requested the Panel should follow choice number (1) for the following reasons:

The Respondent further states that the Panel should opt for the first alternative and grant the Complainant an immediate transfer without discussing the merits. The Respondent finds an expeditious decision to be more suited to the facts of the case, as both parties agree upon a transfer. Furthermore, the Respondent evokes arguments of judicial economy as well as Section 10(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), both of which, according to the Respondent, support an immediate transfer.

Interestingly Respondent requested that “it should be given the opportunity to prepare a more formal response if the Panel decides that further analysis is required.” The Panel rejected this request noting “the Respondent was already given twenty (20) days from the date of the commencement of the proceedings to submit such a response.  Had the Respondent wanted to appropriately and fully reply to the Complaint, it would have had more than enough time to do so.”

So the Panel reviewed the arguments presented and decided that it would go through the full analysis of the three elements.

However, alternatively, it may be decided that this expeditious approach would be a way for cybersquatters to avoid adverse findings against them. This is the reason why the Panel, in Graebel Van Lines, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, FA 1195954 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2008), stated that “the transfer of the disputed domain name deserves to be along with the findings in accordance with the Policy.”

The decision by the Panel was fairly consistent with other Panels. The Panel found that the domain was confusingly similar and nearly identical to Complainant’s mark ABC FINE WINE & SPIRITS with the exception of the additional “s” on the end of the word wine. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the domain name and based on the typosquatting it inferred no rights or legitimate interests. Lastly, the Panel found that Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and attempted to create a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain by using the domain.

Ultimately, the Panel ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

Switch to our mobile site