| Process | Bad Faith | Rights | Choice of Law |
|
Overview | Decisions |
 |
|
Pursuant to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), on December 1, 1999, cybersquatting disputes could be determined by panelists who were designated by dispute resolution providers who had been certified by ICANN.[1] In reaching their decisions, panelists were required to apply the Policy and the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Uniform Rules"). This review covers the first twenty-six decisions under the Policy and the Uniform Rules that were publicly available as of the end of the business day, Pacific Standard Time, on March 13, 2000. The full text of the decisions are available on the ICANN web site (www.icann.org), either by linking to the ICANN list of pending cases, or in some instances by linking to the decisions published by the individual providers. The brief synopsis of each case identifies the case by name, case number, date, panelist(s), indicates the domain name(s) at issue, indicates whether a response to the complaint was filed, and the primary principle(s) to be derived from the decision, the result, and the provisions of the Policy and Uniform Rules cited and any citations to previous panel decisions or court cases.
Some general observations can be made. Of the first twenty-six cases, eleven had responses which were considered, and fifteen were cases in which either the respondent defaulted or the response was late and not considered. In twenty-one cases the domain name(s) at issue was ordered to be transferred to the complainant, in three cases the decision was for the respondent, in one case the domain name at issue was ordered to be canceled, and in one case one of the two domain names at issue was ordered to be transferred and the other domain name at issue was held not within the jurisdiction of the panel. Remarkably, all twenty-six cases involved a panel consisting of a single panelist.[2]
A few general principles were enunciated more than once. A complainant has the burden of proving both 1) that a domain name had been registered in bad faith and 2) that a domain name has been used in bad faith. World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, Case No. D99-0001; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003; Ellenbogen v. Pearson, Case No. D2000-0001. An offer to sell a domain name for more than the costs incurred incidental to its registration constitutes bad faith registration and bad faith use. World Wrestling Federation, supra; Nabisco Brands Company v. The Patron Group, Case No. D2000-0032; Ronson plc v. Unimetal Sanayai ve TicA.S., Case No. D2000-0011. A listing in the Whois Directory that the domain name is for sale constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and bad faith use. America Online, Inc. v. QTR Corporation, Case No. FA0001000092016; Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corporation, Case No. D2000-0023. Panelists looked to prior decisions issued by other panelists in determining how to apply the Policy and the Uniform Rules. Telstra Corporation Limited, supra; Ellenbogen v. Pearson, supra; Nabisco Brands Company, supra; Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. v. Raymond, Case No. D2000-0007; Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, Case No. D2000-0010. Panelists should draw adverse inferences where a respondent has the opportunity to produce evidence within its control which would rebut complainant’s allegations, yet fails to do so. Mondich and American Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Brown, d/b/a Big Daddy’s Antiques, Case No. D2000-0004; Alcoholics Anonymous, supra; Home Interiors & Gifts, supra; Ronson plc, supra. Parfums Christian Dior, supra.
Two of the first twenty-six cases were especially significant: Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, ICANN Case No. D2000-0003, and Digitronics Inventioneering Corporation v. @Six.Net Registered, ICANN Case No. D2000-0008. The first case established an important precedent where a Respondent registers a well-known trademark as a domain name, and then proceeds to hide out and do nothing. The second case supported the rights of a domain name registrant who was commonly known by the names at issue and had been using the domain names at issue for four years against the claims of a claimant who has registered the trademark in the United States and Canada.
In Telstra, supra, the Complainant was the largest company listed on the Australian stock exchange and had been in existence since 1901. Id., at 3. In 1993 Complainant changed its name to Telstra Corporation Limited. Id. Complainant holds more than 50 trademarks registered in Australia which consist of or contain the word Telstra. Id. The trademarks are registered in 17 of the 42 trademark classes. Id. In addition, the Complainant had registered or applied for registration of marks consisting of or containing the word Telstra in more than twenty-five other countries. Id. The problem with which the Panel was confronted is that the Respondent had apparently made no "use" of the domain name at issue since its registration.
The Policy requires proof of both bad faith registration and bad faith use. Policy, 4 a(iii). The legislative history of the Policy makes clear that it was not intended to reach those who merely register and stockpile domain names without more. Second Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, submitted to the ICANN Board, at the meeting of October 24, 1999. The Respondent in Telstra had made no use of the name whatsoever, including not having offered the name for sale generally or to the Complainant specifically.
However, the Panel found that the Respondent had conducted no legitimate commercial or non-commercial activities in Australia and that Respondent had taken deliberate steps to conceal its true identity and to insure that communication with it could not be made. Id., 7.7 at 9. The facts which underlie these findings were:
1) The Respondent, Nuclear Marshmallows, gave a post office box in Australia as an address,The above factors, plus the failure of the Respondent to produce any evidence of actual or contemplated use of the domain names at issue constitute bad faith use through "inaction." The Panel was careful to say that whether, in a given case, inaction can constitute bad faith use is a question of the facts and circumstances particular to that case. Id., 7.11 at 10.
2) The Respondent was not registered as a business or company in Australia,
3) Prior to the filing of the complaint, Complainant attempted to contact Respondent, only to learn that the persons at the addresses and telephone number given by Respondent were not connected with Respondent. Id., 7.12, at 10-11.
In the second case, Digitronics Inventioneering Corporation v. @Six.Net Registered, supra, the Complainant had been doing business as Sixnet since 1983 in the United States and Canada. Id., 4.1. The Complainant had registered "Sixnet" as a trademark in the United States in 1984, and in Canada in August 1998. Id. The mark was registered in the class for electronic controllers for computer network communications. Id.
The Respondent, a Canadian-based Internet Service Provider ("ISP"), had been doing business under the name @six.net since 1995. Id., 4.2. It registered the domain name <sixnet.com> on January 16, 1996, registered the company name @six.net with the Quebec government authorities and registered the domain name <six.net>, both in February 1996. Id.
In October 1998, Complainant wrote Respondent demanding that Respondent stop using the domain names at issue. Id., 4.2. The Respondent replied that it would suffer "a great loss," but offered to transfer the name to Complainant if the parties could agree on terms. When no agreement was reached, the Complainant filed its complaint. Id., 4.3.
The Panel found that the Respondent is commonly known by the name "sixnet," even though it has not acquired a service mark or trademark using that name, and therefore Complainant failed to meet its burden to establish that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name <six.net>. Id., 5.7 and 5.8. See, Policy, 4,a(ii). In respect of the domain name <sixnet.com> the Panel found that again the Complainant had failed to establish that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the name. Id., 5.9. Thus, the Panel determined that the facts that the Complainant had registered marks and that the Respondent had no registration rights in the name at issue would not, in and of themselves, dictate a transfer of the name from Respondent to Complainant.
This brief review cannot do justice
to the careful consideration, judicious application of the Policy and the
Uniform Rules, and the legal reasoning given to the cases by the various
panelists. The inception of a program is the most difficult time. If these
first decisions are to be accepted as an indication of how the process
will work over time, they certainly suggest that the panelists are making
every effort to apply the Policy, the Uniform Rules, and the law, where
it is appropriate, to render a just result.
PANEL DECISIONS
1. World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, Case No. D99-0001a. Date: January 14, 2000
b. Panelist(s): M. Scott Donahey
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <worldwrestlingfederation.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) The legislative history of the Policy and the Uniform Rules requires proof of both bad faith registration and bad faith use.f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(i), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: N/A
j. Judicial decisions cited:
Panavision Int’l v. Toeppen, 141 F. 3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1999);2. America Online, Inc. v. QTR Corporation, Case No. FA0001000092016
Intermatic, Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F.Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
a. Date: February 10, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Harold Kalina
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <icqsms.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) Listing in the Whois Directory, "This Domain Name Is For Sale" and providing false contact information by failing to provide street addresses or street name and by providing a facsimile number that does not route to a legitimate facsimile number is evidence of bad faith.f. Result: Name transfer.
g. Policy cited: 4(c)(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
3. Mondich and American Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc., Case No. D2000-0004
a. Date: February 16, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Mark V. B. Partridge
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <americanvintage.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) The following is evidence of bad faith:f. Result: Name transfer.a) offer to sell;2) Adverse inferences may be drawn from failure to submit evidence in rebuttal.
b) failure to make good faith use of domain name during two year period
following registration;
c) respondent’s failure to submit evidence in rebuttal.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(b)(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 14, 15(a)
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
4. Stella D’Oro Biscuit Co., Inc. v. The Patron Group, Inc., Case No. D2000-0012
a. Date: February 17, 2000
b. Panelist(s): David W. Plant
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <stelladoro.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) Respondent’s asserted ownership of more than 1000 well-known terms in use by global companies is evidence of bad faith intent to profit from sales of domain namesf. Result: Name Transfer.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
5. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003
a. Date: February 18, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Andrew F. Christie
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <telstra.org>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) Citation to finding in previous panel decision;f. Result: Name Transfer
2) Inaction in the presence of particular circumstances can constitute bad faith use.
Analysis must be conducted case by case;
3) Active steps by the respondent to conceal the respondent’s identity is evidence
of bad faith.
g. Policy cited: 2(a), 4(a), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None.
i. Panel decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
6. Facetime Communications, Inc. v. Live Person, Inc., Case No. FA0001000092048
a. Date: February 18, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Harold Kalina
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <facetime.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) Where complainant and respondent are in the same line of business, the use of complainant’s mark as a second level domain name (SLD) by respondent is likely to confuse public. Proof of actual confusion exists in misdirected emails. This constitutes interference with a competitor’s business relationship, which constitutes a pattern of conduct that interferes with complainants’s right to conduct business.f. Result: Name transfer.
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(a), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
7. Ellenbogen v. Pearson, Case No. D2000-0001
a. Date: February 20, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Roderick M. Thompson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <musicweb.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) Citation to decision of other panelist.f. Result: Name transfer.
2) The fact that the domain name was listed on an online domain name broker’s web site as, "for sale," constitutes bad faith use.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(b)(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5, 12, 15(a)
i. Panel decisions: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions: Intermatic, Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F.Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill.1996)
8. Omni Financial Corporation v. Net Ascent of Northern California, Case No.FA0001000092049
a. Date: February 22, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Earl B. Gustafson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <omniloan.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) The facts that respondent, who registered the name <omniloan.com>, is not in the lending business, that respondent offered to sell the name, and that respondent registered fifty other unrelated domain names constitute evidence of bad faith.f. Result: Name transfer.
g. Policy cited: (4)i
h. Uniform Rules: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel decisions: None
j. Judicial decisions: None
9. Nabisco Brands Company v. The Patron Group, Inc., Case No. D2000-0032
a. Date: February 23, 2000
b. Panelist(s): David W. Plant
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<wheatthins.com>, <wheatsworth.com>,<bettercheddars.com>, <harvestcrisps.com>,<milk-bone.com>d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) Ownership of more than forty domain names, many of which are well-known product names, suggest an intent to profit from the activities of others;f. Result: Name transfer.
2) Offer to sell name for more than costs is evidence of bad faith registration and use;
3) Cited decision of prior panelist.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel decisions cited:
Stella D’oro Biscuit Co., Inc. v. The Patron Group, Inc., Case No. D2000-0012.j. Judicial decisions cited: None
10. Fossil, Inc. v. NAS, FA0001000092525
a. Date: February 23, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Robert R. Merhige,
Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <fossilwatch.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) Establishment by respondent of web site for the sale of watches using a domain name which is confusingly similar to complainant’s marks, which are primarily used in the sale of watches, constitutes unfair competition and infringement of complainant’s marks.f. Result: Name transfer.
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
11. Cedar Trade Associates, Inc. v. Ricks, FA0002000093633
a. Date: February 25, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James A. Carmody
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <buypc.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) Panel considered a rebuttal without comment;f. Result: Name Transfer.
2) Offering a domain name for sale through a domain name broker constitutes bad faith registration and use.
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
12. Adaptive Molecular Technologies, Inc. v. Woodward & Thornton, d/b/a Machines & More, Case No. D2000-0006
a. Date: February 28, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Sally M. Abel
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <militec.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) As authorized stocking distributor, notification to complainant of registration of domain name without objection, constitutes nominative fair use;f. Result: Finding for respondent.
2) Use of domain name with mere knowledge of existence of trademark cannot by itself constitute bad faith.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b)(iv)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
13. Aero Turbine, Inc. v. Mcayman, Ltd., Case No. FA0002000093675
a. Date: February 28, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Henry X. Deitch
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <aeroturbine.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) Panel considered rebuttal without comment;f. Result: Name transfer.
2) Respondent’s order to complainant for purchase of Rolls Royce engines demonstrates knowledge of mark and of no legitimate interest in mark.
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(a)
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
14. Fiber-Shield Industries, Inc. v. Fiber Shield, Ltd., Case No. FA0001000092064
a. Date: February 29, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James A. Carmody
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <fibershield.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) Panel considered rebuttal without comment; 2) Registration of domain name with "actual awareness" of prior registration of mark and no claim of rights superior to trademark registration justifies cancellation of registration.f. Result: Cancellation of registration.
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
15. Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, Case No. D2000-0009
a. Date: February 29, 2000
b. Panelist(s): David H. Bernstein
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <talk-city.com>
d. Response?: Late; not considered.
e. Principle(s):
1) Response submitted two weeks after due date rejected - email from respondent received two days after due date accepted, but given no weight because it lacked requisite certification;f. Result: Name transfer.
2) Use of domain name to attract consumer to web site constitutes bad faith registration and use.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(i), 8(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited:
5(a), 5(b)(viii), 5(e), 10(a), 10(d), 14(a), 14(b), 15(b), 15(e), 17(a), 17(b), 17(e)i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
16. Travel Services, Inc. v. Tour COOP of Puerto Rico, Case No. FA0001000092524
a. Date: February 29, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Henry X. Deitch
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <destinationpuertorico.com>,
<destinationpuertorico.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) Rebuttal considered without comment;f. Result: Name transfer.
2) Respondent’s use of domain name misleadingly diverts consumers as well as tarnishing complainant’s trademark or service mark.
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(a)
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
17. Heelquik!, Inc. v. Goldman, et al., Case No. FA0001000092527
a. Date: March 1, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Charles K. McCotter,
Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <heelquik.com>,
<heelquik.org>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) Supplemental response considered without comment;f. Result: Name <heelquik.com transferred>; proceedings as to <heelquik.org> dismissed.
2) Use of trademark in Second Level Domain violates license agreement between complainant and respondent and is evidence that respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name;
3) As the registrar could not verify the registration of <heelquik.org>, the domain name was not subject to the Policy.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a).
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
18. Digitronics Inventioneering Corporation v. @Six.Net Registered, Case No. D2000-0008
a. Date: March 1, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Clive D. Thorne
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sixnet.com>;
<six.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) Respondent was commonly known by the Second Level Domain name. Thus, respondent has "rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name."f. Result: Decision for respondent.
g. Policy cited: 3(c), 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(c), 4(c)(ii)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
19. Bragg v. Condon, Case No.FA0001000092528
a. Date: March 2, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Charles K. McCotter,
Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <plasticdocshop.com>,
<cosmeticdocshop.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) The fact that complainant registered <plasticsdocshop.com> and <cosmeticsdocshop.com> fifteen months prior to respondent’s registrations is a factor in ordering name transfer.f. Result: Name transfer.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
20. Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Network, Inc., Case No. D2000-0022
a. Date: March 3, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Geert V. Glas
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<christiandiorcosmetics.com>, <christiandiorfashions.com>, <diorcosmetics.com>, <diorfashions.com>d. Response?: Yes (email, informal)
e. Principle(s):
1) Whois printout showed that respondent had registered at least forty-six other domain names, many of which included well-known trademarks of third parties. This constitutes evidence of registration in bad faith.f. Result: Name transfer.
2) By acknowledging in an email that it had no rights to the domain names at issue while refusing to transfer the domain names to the complainant, the respondent was effectively using the domain names in bad faith.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
21. Telaxis Communications Corp. v. Minkle, Case No. D2000-0005
a. Date: March 5, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Richard W. Page
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <telaxis.net>,
<telaxis.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) The domain name at issue was registered and used in conjunction with real estate services well prior to notification of any dispute with complainant. Therefore, the registration was in good faith and respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue.f. Result: Decision for respondent.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(c)(i), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15
i. Panel decisions cited: None.
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
22. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. v. Raymond, Case No. D2000-0007
a. Date: March 6, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Sally Abel
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <alcoholicsanonymous.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) Cited decision of prior panel.f. Result: Name transfer.
2) Failure to submit evidence on facts within party’s control permits the drawing of an adverse inference regarding such facts. Inference of bad faith from the allegations of the complaint and the absence of a response thereto.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(iv)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15(a)
i. Panel decisions cited: Mondich v. Brown, D2000-0004
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
23. Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, Case No. D2000-0010
a. Date: March 7, 2000
b. Panelist(s): M. Scott Donahey
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <homeinteriors.net>,
<homeinteriorsandgifts.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) Registration of two domain names insufficient to establish pattern of conduct under Policy, 4,b(ii); 2) Placing of traffic counter without any other content at web site established using the domain name at issue is tantamount to an offer to sell; 3) Cited prior panel decisions.f. Result: Name transfer.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), 4(b)(iii), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 14(b), 15(a)
i. Panel decisions cited:
Mondich and American Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Brown, D2000-0004;j. Judicial decisions cited: None
Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000- 0003.
24. Ronson plc v. Unimetal Sanayai ve Tic.A.S., Case No. D2000-0011
a. Date: March 8, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Charles Gielen
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ronson.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) Failure by respondent to give evidence of right or legitimate interest in domain name leads panel to conclude that no such right or legitimate interest exists;f. Result: Name transfer.
2) Upon being requested to transfer domain name at issue, respondent requested US$70,000, which amount would be raised to US$100,000 if not paid prior to year end. This was evidence of bad faith registration.
3) Request by complainant that decision not be published was rejected by the panel, since there was no showing of exceptional circumstances.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(j)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 16(b)
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
25. Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corporation, Case No. D2000-0023
a. Date: March 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Geert V. Glas
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <dior.org>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) Failure to respond and to invoke rights or legitimate interests in domain name leads panel to conclude that respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain name;f. Result: Name transfer.
2) Whois record contained notation, "This domain name is for sale." This same legend was contained in other domain names registered by respondent. This constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use.
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15(a)
i. Panel decisions cited: None.
j. Judicial decisions cited: None.
26. Fideicomiso Puerto Aventuras v. Web Strategies, Case No. FA00010000092526
a. Date: Unknown
b. Panelist(s): Robert R. Merhige,
Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <puertoaventuras.com>,
<puertoaventuras.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) Failure to transfer domain name when requested by holder of marks constitutes bad faith registration and use.f. Result: Name transfer.
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
[1] At the present time, three providers have been certified by ICANN: the World Intellectual Property Organization, based in Geneva, Switzerland; the joint venture of eResolution, based in Montreal, Canada, and Disputes.Org, based in Amherst, Massachusetts; and the National Arbitration Forum, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
[2]
The Uniform Rules permit either the complainant or the respondent to elect
a three-person panel. Uniform Rules, Rules 3(b)(iv) and 5(b)(iv).