| Process | Bad Faith | Rights | Choice of Law |
|
Overview | Decisions |
 |
|
Between 5:00 p.m. P.S.T., March 13, 2000, and 9:30 a.m. April 7, 2000, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) issued 110 panel decisions under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), bringing the total decisions issued as of that date to 136. Notably, a number of the cases involved three-person panels, which had not been used in the first twenty-six cases.[1] And while the majority of the first twenty-six cases were decided in a default environment, the respondent participated in the majority of the cases digested in this report. In eighty-two instances the Panel ordered a transfer of the domain name at issue, in five cases the domain name was cancelled, one case settled and the fact of settlement was reflected in the opinion, and twenty-four cases involved a decision for the respondent.[2] Of the first twenty-six decisions, only five cited prior decisions as authority for their findings. Twenty-seven of the next 110 decisions cited the decisions issued by prior panels. Thus, only 24% of ICANN decisions have cited prior decisions as precedent, not an encouraging percentage if one values the development of a predictable body of law which users can reference and on which they can rely.
Several cases addressed when a respondent can demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.[3] In the case of Unitil Resources, Inc. v. Robert Ampe, ICANN Case No. FA0002000093553, the Panel held that the registration of domain names by the respondent prior to complainant’s application for a service mark, which registration was done with an intention to use the domain names in conjunction with a business plan, the registration of a toll free telephone number using the domain name, together constituted evidence of rights and legitimate interests in respect of the domain names at issue. Where a respondent registered the domain name at issue six months prior to the time at which the complainant changed its name and applied to register its new name as a mark, complainant was held not to have carried its burden to show that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue. Mpower Communications Corp. v. Park Lodge Hotel, ICANN Case No. D2000-0078. The fact that the respondent had actually used the domain name for its products or services gives the respondent a legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. Shelley Harrison v. Coopers Consulting, Inc., ICANN Case No. AF-0121. A domain name broker who registers generic or descriptive names has been held to have established legitimate interests or rights in respect of the domain names. General Machine Products Company, Inc. v. Prime Domains (a/k/a Telepathy, Inc.), ICANN Case No. FA0001000092531. More generally, it has been held that the first to register a domain name should prevail in circumstances where the domain name is a generic word and where that word is widely used as a trademark or service mark. CRS Technology Corporation v. Condenet, Inc., ICANN Case No. FA0002000093574.
Other cases have found that a complainant has established that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue. In the case of Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., ICANN Case No. D2000-0020, the Panel held that a respondent who registered a domain name which was identical to complainant’s trademark for use in conjunction with a web site on which the shareholders of complainant could exchange views does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The issue was not one of freedom of speech, but rather of the choice of a domain name for use as a web site where such speech could be exercised. To similar effect is the decision in CSA International (a.k.a. Canadian Standards Association) v. John O. Shannon and Care Tech Industries, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0071, where the Panel found that a web site established by the respondent using complainant’s mark for the purpose of criticizing complainant’s refusal to certify respondent’s product was directed toward a commercial end, especially where it advertised the benefits of respondent’s products on the web site and refers users to respondent’s home page, where respondent’s products are promoted. Under these circumstances, respondent has failed to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. Finally, it has been held that registration of a domain name without use does not give a party rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Bona fide activity using the domain name is required. Barney’s, Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, ICANN Case No. D2000-0059.
A number of cases have found that a respondent has constructive knowledge of a duly registered mark, citing national laws, and that this knowledge negates rights or legitimate interests on the part of a respondent who registers the domain name subsequent to the registration of the mark and/or is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name. Cellular One Group v. Brien, ICANN Case No. D2000-0028; Finter Bank Zurich v. Gianluca Olivier, ICANN Case No. D2000-0091; Barney’s, Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, ICANN Case No. D2000-0059.
Two cases seem to restrict the application of ¶4(b)(i) of the Policy, which provides that “circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or [the respondent has] acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name . . . .” The Policy provides that such circumstances “shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith . . . .” However, the Panel in Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, ICANN Case No. D2000-0044 held that an offer to sell a domain name on a broker web site is not an offer to sell the domain name to complainant or to a competitor of complainant. And in Avnet, Inc. v. Aviation Network, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0046, the Panel held that an offer to sell a domain name for a mutually agreeable price, even if the price is in excess of the complainant’s documented out of pocket costs, does not establish bad faith unless it can be shown that respondent has no legitimate prior rights or interests in respect of the domain name.
While a number of decisions deserve extended discussion, I have selected three which merit special focus because of the potentially important principles they establish. In the first of these, Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, ICANN Case No. D2000-0044, the Panel was confronted with a non-appearing respondent who had made no use of the name and whose conduct did not fall within one of the four evidentiary illustrations contained in ¶4(b) of the Policy, just as was the Panel in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, ICANN Case No. D2000-0003.[4] The Panel, without reference to the Telstra decision, rejected complainant’s argument that the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name at issue on a domain name broker’s web site at a cost far in excess of respondent’s out of pocket expenses came within the ambit of ¶4(b)(i) of the Policy and constituted evidence of bad faith registration and use. Id., at 6. However, the Panel went on to state:
This does not, however, end our inquiry regarding the element of bad faith, since the Policy indicates that its listing of bad faith factors is without limitation. Thus we must still ask whether a general offer for sale in the circumstances of this case constitutes bad faith use of the domain name.Id., at 7-8. It will be interesting to see if this value-added concept will be adopted by other Panel decisions.The value which Respondent seeks to secure from sale of the domain name is based on the underlying value of Complainant’s trademark. This value is grounded in the right of Complainant to use its mark to identify itself as a source of goods or services. Respondent has failed to establish any legitimate domain name-related use for Complainant’s trademark in a context in which such legitimization might be possible. The Respondent having failed to present any such justification, the Panel may reasonably infer that Respondent neither intended to make nor has made any legitimate use of Complainant’s trademark in connection with the “toefl.com” domain name.
In light of the undisputed record in this proceeding, the Panel concludes that the Respondent did in fact register and use the “toefl.com” domain name in bad faith. It has made no use of the domain name other than to offer it for sale at a price that is likely to substantially exceed its out-of-pocket costs of registration, and the price that the domain name commands would largely be based on the trademark of the Complainant. Although a supplemental, as opposed to competitive, user of the domain name might be willing to pay the price sought by Respondent, there is no reason based on the record to award this price to Respondent. The Respondent was the first-to-register, and in circumstances of legitimate registration and use this may secure its right to the domain name. However, because Respondent is contributing no value-added to the Internet --it is merely attempting to exploit a general rule of registration – the broad community of Internet users will be better served by transferring the domain name to a party with a legitimate use for it.
The second of the three decisions involved the domain name <thyme.com.> Shirmax Retail Ltd./Detaillants Shirmax Ltee v. CES Marketing Group Inc., ICANN Case No. AF-0104. Having found that the domain name was identical to Complainant’s trademark, the Panel then found that the Complainant had failed to meet its burden to show that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Id., 2-3. In dictum, the Panel went on to analyze whether the Complainant had demonstrated bad faith registration and use. In its analysis of ¶4(b) of the policy, the Panel determined that subsection 4(b)(iv) did not require proof of both bad faith registration and bad faith use:
[Paragraph 4(b)(iv)], however, refers only to improper use, and does not appear to require that the domain name also have been registered in bad faith. This example thus appears to conflict with the rule set fort in paragraph 4(a)(iii). The language of paragraph 4(a)(iii) is clear, and the only reasonable interpretations are to regard the fourth example as a narrow exception to the preceding subparagraph’s conjunctive rule, or to apply the conjunctive rule as it is written and disregard the example entirely.Id., 3-4. The Panel then acknowledged that the Respondent is engaged in the business of registering and reselling domain names for profit. The Panel determined that the registration of a generic term as a domain name for eventual resale to a third party is not registration of the name in bad faith. Then, assuming that subsection 4(b)(iv) requires only bad faith use, the Panel determined that although the name was used by the Respondent for commercial gain, it did not do so by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark, and thus its use was not in bad faith.
Finally, only one case to date has invoked the exceptional circumstances exception to Paragraph 13 of the rules to find that a hearing is necessary. In the case of Biofield Corp. v. Jaehyun Kwon, ICANN Case No. AF-0102, the Korean respondent sent email communications which both claimed and illustrated significant difficulty with the English language. The Panel issued the following order:
The Panel has reviewed the file in the above referenced matter and has determined that, as an exceptional matter, this case requires further statements and documents and a telephonic hearing. Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Uniform Rules”), Rules 12 and 13.Id., 2-3. The Panel went on to say that this order was necessary, because “[t]he Panel believes that Uniform Rules, Rule 10(b)[5] is paramount and that its observance is essential to the public acceptance of the Policy and the process.”The reason for this determination are as follows:
1. Complainant filed no annexes in support of the complaint. Uniform Rules, Rule 3(b)(xv);
2. Respondent’s primary language is Korean, and there are indications in the file that language difficulties may have cause the response to have been filed late and out of compliance with the rules in that it did not contain the requisite annexes or certification.
3. Although the registration is in the English language, and Uniform Rules, Rule 11(a) and this Panel determine that English is the language of the proceedings, the Panel believes that respondent may be at a disadvantage absent a hearing at which an interpreter could be present.
Accordingly, the Panel orders as follows:
1. That complainant be notified that complainant has until Monday, March 20, 2000 to submit annexes in compliance with Uniform Rules, Rule 3(b)(xv);
2. That respondent be notified that respondent has until Monday, March 20, 2000 to submit a response meeting the requirements of Uniform Rules, Rule 5, and more specifically having the necessary certification required by Uniform Rules, Rule 5(b)(viii) and the annexes required by Uniform Rules, Rule 5(b)(ix). The Panel requests that the Clerk transmit a copy of Uniform Rules, Rule 5 to the respondent with subparagraphs (b)(viii) and (b)(ix) highlighted.
3. That arrangements be made for a telephonic hearing with the parties and the panel on Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at a time mutually convenient to the parties. The parties should notify the Clerk as soon as possible of convenient times on that date. The panel will reserve the entire day. The Provider will arrange for a Korean/English interpreter to participate in the telephonic hearing to insure that the respondent is not disadvantaged.
The digest of the 110 cases decided during the period of this report follows.
27. Grodberg v. Rugly Enterprises, LLC, Case No. FA000100092975
a. Date: March 2, 200028. Western Hay Company v. Carl Forester, Case No. FA0001000093466b. Panelist(s): Marilyn W. Carney
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <phonespell.com>, <phonespell.net>, <phonesspell.com>, <phonespel.com>, <phonespel.org>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
Fact that Respondent had purchased domain name first registered more than 2 years prior to Complainant’s application for service mark factor in decision.
f. Result: Decision for respondent
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 3, 200029. Planetrx.com, Inc. v. Intertainment, Inc., Case No. FA0001000092973b. Panelist(s): Marilyn W. Carney
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <westernhay.com>, <westernhay.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) One who arrived at Respondent’s “discussion forum” web site would not be confused; and
2) Western Hay is a generic term.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 7, 200030. Philips India Limited v. Proton Engineers, Case No. FA0001000092529b. Panelist(s): Robert S. Brandt
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <planetrxx.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
Complainant who has applied to register marks has protectible interest under Policy.
f. Result: Name cancellation
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 7, 200031. Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. Roark d/b/a/ Loanmart, Case No. FA0002000093671b. Panelist(s): Paul A. Dorf
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <philipsindia.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
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
a. Date: March 7, 200032. Cunard Line Limited v. Champion Travel, Inc., Case No. FA0001000092053b. Panelist(s): Paul A. Dorf
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <loanmart.org>, <loanmart.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
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
a. Date: March 8, 200033. TVAzteca, S.A. de C.V. v. Oretegaray, Case No. FA0001000092533b. Panelist(s): Daniel B. Banks, Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cunardcruise.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
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
a. Date: March 8, 200034. Allergan, Inc. v. David Ostad, Case No. FA0001000092974b. Panelist(s): Daniel B. Banks
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <tvazteca.com>, <tvazteca.net>, <tvazteca.org>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Respondent’s registration of another domain name identical to another trademark constitutes “a pattern of bad faith.”
f. Result: Name transfer
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
a. Date: March 8, 200035. Noodle Time, Inc. v. Max Marketing, Case No. AF-0100b. Panelist(s): Robert S. Brandt
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <botox.net>
d. Response?: No(?)
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 9, 200036. Pearson v. Byers Choice, Case No. FA0001000092015b. Panelist(s): Maurice Wolf
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <benihanaoftokyo.com >
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Representation that registration of domain name will not infringe or violate rights of third party not made in good faith where domain name identical to well-known mark.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 1, 1(c), 4, 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(b)(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(e), 14
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 9, 200037. Ingersoll-Rand v. Frank Gully, d/b/a/ Advcomren, Case No. D2000-0021b. Panelist(s): Louis Condon
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <buyerschoice.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Additional responses by Complainant and Respondent accepted without comment.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: 4(a), 4(d)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 9, 200038. Beverages and More, Inc. v. Glenn Sober Mgmt., Case No. AF-0092b. Panelist(s): M. Scott Donahey
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ingersoll-rand.net>; <ingersoll-rand.org>, <ingersollrand.org>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): 1) Use of Complainant’s mark in domain name to route to web site which in turn links to pornographic web site constitutes bad faith registration and use; and 2) Present tense “is being used” in Policy, ¶ 4,a(iii) refers to at any time subsequent to registration, and does not require use at a particular time or use continuing up to and including the time when the opinion is drafted.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(b)(iii), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 14(b), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Ellenbogen v. Pearson, ICANN Case No. D2000-0001; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, ICANN Case No. D2000-0003
j. Judicial decisions cited: Panavision Int’l v. Toeppen, 945 F. Supp. 1296 (C.D. Cal.1996)
a. Date: March 9, 200039. Big Dog Holdings, Inc. DBA Big Dog Sportswear v. Frank Day, Case No. FA0002000093554b. Panelist(s): Richard D. Faulkner
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <beveragesandmore.com>
d. Response?: Informal
e. Principle(s): “Parking” of domain name can constitute bad faith use.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited:
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: Sporty’s Farm LLC v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 1246, 53 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1570
a. Date: March 9, 200040. Euroconsult, Inc. v. Euroconsult, Case No. FA0002000093555b. Panelist(s): Irving H. Perluss
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <bigdog.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 9, 200041. Zwack Unicum R.T. v. Duna, Case No. D2000-0037b. Panelist(s): Irving H. Perluss
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <euroconsult.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 10, 200042. Cellular One Group v. Brien, Case No. D2000-0028b. Panelist(s): Katalin Szamosi
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <zwackunicum.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Use of web site using domain name at issue to link to web site of direct competitor evidence of bad faith use.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 10, 200043. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Steven s. Lalwani; Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Long Distance Telephone Company, Case Nos. D2000-0014 and D2000-0015b. Panelist(s): Thomas D. Halket
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cellularonechina.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Registrant is charged with prior constructive or actual knowledge of registered trademark under U.S. law.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 11, 200044. Marriott International, Inc. v. Café Au Lait, Case No. FA0002000093670b. Panelist(s): W. R. Cornish
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <theeconomictimes.com>, <thetimesofindia.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Registration of trademark not test of protectibility, use is.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4, 4(f), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 13, 200045. Fanuc Ltd. v. Machine Control Services, Case No. FA0002000093667b. Panelist(s): Louis Condon
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <marriott-hotel.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: 4
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 13, 200046. Slep_tone Entertainment Corporation d/b/a Sound Choice Accompaniment Tracks v. Christopher C. Dremann, Case No. FA0002000093636b. Panelist(s): Paul A. Dorf
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <fanuc.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b)(i), 4(b)(iv), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 13, 200047. Michael J. Swan v. Daniel Begg, Case No. FA0002000093559b. Panelist(s): Paul A. Dorf
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sound_choice.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 3(b)(x), 3(b)(xiv), 3(h)(x)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 13, 200048. Unitil Resources, Inc. v. Robert Ampe, Case No. FA0002000093553b. Panelist(s): James A. Carmody
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cybergauge.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 14, 200049. Steamaster/Steamist Co., Inc. v. Guillen’s Enterprises, Inc., Jose Guillen, Case No. FA0002000093556b. Panelist(s): Harold Kalina
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <usource.com>, <usource.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Registration of domain names prior to application for service mark done with intention to use in conjunction with business plan, registration of toll free number using domain name, all evidence of good faith on behalf of Respondent.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 14, 200050. Baker Hughes, Inc. v. Petroil, C.A., Case No. FA0002000093557b. Panelist(s): Unknown
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <steamist.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(c)(i), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 14, 2000b. Panelist(s): John J. Upchurch
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <vybar.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
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
51. The Hambletonian Society v. Images Marketing Group, Case No. FA0002000093710
a. Date: March 14, 200052. Draw-Tite, Inc. v. Plattsburgh Spring, Inc., Case No. D2000-0017b. Panelist(s): Louis Condon
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <hambletonian.com>, <breederscrown.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: 4
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 14, 200053. Golfer’s Warehouse, Inc. v. Dan Lynch, Case No. FA0002000092532b. Panelist(s): Jordan S. Weinstein
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <drawtite.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): 1) Declaration that case extraordinary matter which required parties to furnish additional documents; and 2) Respondent’s use of domain name for two years before Complainant objected, and Complainant’s failure to refute Respondent’s allegations that Complainant consented to such use constitutes a failure of proof by Complainant.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 3(b)(xiii), 4(a), 4(k)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 1, 12
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001; Ellenbogen v. Pearson, ICANN Case No. D2000-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 14, 2000b. Panelist(s): R. Glen Ayers, Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <golferswarehouse.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
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
54. Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., Case No. D2000-0020
a. Date: March 14, 200055. Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc., Case No. D2000-0039b. Panelist(s): Geert Glas
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <saint-gobain.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): 1) Respondent who registered domain name identical to complainant’s trademark for use in conjunction with web site on which shareholders of Complainant could exchange views does not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name; and 2) Issue not one of freedom of speech, but of choice of domain name used to exercise freedom of speech.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 14, 200056. Adventure City, Inc. v. Robert Giunta and Gotchya Marketing and Promotions, Case No. FA0002000093632b. Panelist(s): Richard W. Page
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <budgetsaver.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Where Respondent had actual knowledge of trademark of Complainant, and within 12 days of registration of domain name at issue, Respondent contacted Complainant re: purchase or sale of domain names, there is evidence of registration and use in bad faith.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 15, 2000b. Panelist(s): Karl V. Fink
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <adventurecity.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 2(a)(i), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
57. Southern Bank and Trust Company v. Dmitry Pogrebetsky, Case No. FA0002000093673
a. Date: March 15, 200058. Marconi Commerce Systems, Inc. v. Mr. B. Evans, Case No. FA0002000093560b. Panelist(s): James A. Carmody
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <southernbank.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
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
a. Date: March 15, 200059. Almanauta, Inc. v. Raul Alberto Cinelli, Case No. FA0002000093630b. Panelist(s): John Bender
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <gilbarcoeclipse.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 15, 200060. Athletica, Inc. v. Wilson, Case No. FA0002000093764b. Panelist(s): Karl Fink
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <almanauta.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 15, 200061. Indiana Mulch and Stone LLC v. Keith’s Farmer’s Market, Case No. FA0002000093676b. Panelist(s): John A. Bender
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <borderpatrol.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 15, 200062. America Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., Case No. FA0002000093679b. Panelist(s): Marilyn W. Carney
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <indianamulch.com>, <indymulch.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Two days late response rejected because not timely filed
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 16, 200063. Harrods Limited v. Boyd, Case No. D2000-0060b. Panelist(s): Irving J. Perluss
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <americaonline.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
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
a. Date: March 16, 200064. Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, Case No. D2000-0044b. Panelist(s): Ian Barker
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <dodifayed.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s: Offer to world of domain name at issue for asking price of US$400,000 demonstrates complainant is natural target of offer.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(b), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: Panavision Int’l v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998); Intermatic, Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F.Supp.1227 (N.D.Ill 1996)
a. Date: March 16, 200065. Tourism and Corporate Automation Ltd. v. TSI Ltd., Case No. AF-0096b. Panelist(s): Frederick M. Abbott
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <toefl.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Offer to sell domain name on broker web site is not an offer to sell the domain name to complainant or to a competitor of complainant.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 4(b)(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 14(b)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: Avery Dennison v. Sumpton, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 19954 (9th Cir. 1999)
a. Date: March 16, 200066. Easyjet Airline Company, Ltd. v. Steggles, Case No. D2000-0024b. Panelist(s): I. Trotter Hardy
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <tourplan.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 17, 200067. Credit Management Solutions, Inc. v. Colley Resource Management, Case No. D2000-0029b. Panelist(s): Charles Gielen
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <easyjet.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Reply and surrebuttal rejected, since not requested by Panel.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 3, 4, 5, 6, 12
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 17, 200068. Fire-Trol Holdings, LLC v. Fire Foam Products Development, Case No. FA0002000093709b. Panelist(s): Mark V.B. Partridge
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <creditconnection.org>, <creditconnection.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 4(a), 4(b)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Adaptive Molecular Technologies, Inc. v. Woodward & Thornton, Case No. D2000-0006
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 17, 200069. SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Inspectorate, Case No. D2000-0025b. Panelist(s): Irving H. Perluss
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <firefoam.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a), 5(b)(i), 5(b)(viii)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 184 F. 3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1999)
a. Date: March 17, 200070. The Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v. Powell, Case No. D2000-0038b. Panelist(s): Roberto A. Bianchi
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sgs.net>, <sgsgroup.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): 1) Argument that confusion cold not exist in .net domain, but only in .com, rejected; 2) Setting of an Internet “cul-de-sac” where prospective customers of complainant are diverted to a tombstone at web site constitutes a “pattern of conduct;” and 3) Where parties are from different countries, Panel will apply the policy and rules, without recourse to any national law
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 3(b)(xiii), 3(b)(xiv), 5(b)(i), 15, 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001; Ellenbogen v. Pearson, ICANN Case No. D2000-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 17, 200071. Banco Espanol de Creditor, S.A. v. Miguel duarte Perry Vidal Taveira, Case No. D2000-0018b. Panelist(s): David Perkins
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <euro-tunnel.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): 1) Reply (Answer to Response) rejected by Panel as outside the rules; and 2) The use of a hyphen is not a material difference, and name is otherwise identical.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 2(b), 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(ix)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 10
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 18, 200072. The Avenue, Inc. and United Retail Inc. v. Chris Guirguis, d/b/a Lighthouse Web Design and/or Cannibal, and Sam Guirguis, Case No. D2000-0013b. Panelist(s): Luis H. de Larramendi
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <banesto.org>, <banesto.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(b)(ii)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001; D2000-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 19, 200073. Shirmax Retail Ltd./Detaillants/Shirmax LTEE v. CES Marketing Group, Inc., Case No. AF-0104b. Panelist(s): William R. Cornish, Chair; Joan Clark; Sally Abel
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sizesunlimited.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 20, 200074. Reef Industries v. Moose Lake Products Co., Inc., Case No. D2000-0041b. Panelist(s): David E. Sorkin
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <thyme.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) Domain name identical to a mark satisfies first prong of 3-prong test for bad faith under policy - likelihood of confusion unnecessary;f. Result: Decision for Respondent
2) Where mark is generic in nature and no more than one word, the rights/interest to it under the Policy more likely to favor the domain name registrant;
3) 4(b)(iv) of the Policy requires only bad faith use and is narrow exception to requirement that there be both bad faith registration and bad faith use;
4) Where party is engaged in business of reselling domain names, but where names being resold are generic in nature, no bad faith; and
5) Reverse domain name hijacking - bad faith component requires:
(i) Complainant has obvious interest in obtaining domain name at issue, and
(ii) Lacks even a plausible argument as to each of the elements.g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b)(iv), 4(d), 4(i), 6(b)(iv)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(e)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 20, 2000b. Panelist(s): Roderick Thompson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <rollasign.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
75. Storage Technology Corporation v. Network Systems GA, Inc., Case No. FA0002000094188
a. Date: March 20, 200076. Obagi Medical Products, Inc. v. Obagi Skin Health Products Italy SRL, Case No. FA0002000093767b. Panelist(s): James A. Carmody
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <networksystems.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 20, 200077. Calstore.com v. Calstore.net, Case No. FA0002000094206b. Panelist(s): James A. Carmody
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <obagi.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 20, 200078. Hale Indian River Groves, Inc. v. Hale Groves Consulting, Case No. FA0002000093552b. Panelist(s): Louis Condon
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <calstore.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 3(b)(i), 4,8
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 20, 200079. Car Toys, Inc. v. Informa Unlimited, Inc., Case No. FA0002000093682b. Panelist(s): Edmund P. Karem
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <halegroves.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 20, 200080. Celestial Seasonings, Inc. v. Celestialseasonings.net, Case No. FA0002000093628b. Panelist(s): Marilyn W. Carney
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cartoys.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Broker dealing in merely descriptive domain names not operating in bad faith, even though descriptive name has been registered as a trademark.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 20, 200081. Entercolor Technologies Corporation v. Gigantor Software Development, Inc., Case No. FA0002000093635b. Panelist(s): Karl V. Fink
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <celestialseasonings.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name cancellation
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 21, 200082. America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Communications Corp., Case No. FA0002000093668b. Panelist(s): Robert S. Brandt
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <gigantor.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): The fact that Respondent registered the domain name in 1995 and yet has never used it for a web site, insufficient for finding of bad faith.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 21, 200083. The Stanley Works v. Borden, Case No. FA0002000094204b. Panelist(s): James A. Carmody
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <oicq.com>, <oicq.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): 1) The decision issued was an amended decision, superseding the original decision, dated March 17,2000; and 2) Domain names and confusingly similar marks may not co-exist in different language or national markets.
f. Result: Name transfer
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
a. Date: March 21, 200084. Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang, Case No. D2000-0055b. Panelist(s): Karl V. Fink
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sidchrome.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 21, 200085. EFG Bank European Financial Group SA v. Jacob Foundation, Case No. D2000-0036b. Panelist(s): Anna Carabelli
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <guerlain.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(b)(viii), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001; Stella D'Oro Biscuit Co., Inc. v. The Patron Group, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0012; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, ICANN Case No. D2000-0003
j. Judicial decisions cited: Saxony, Inc. v. Guerlain (9th Cir.)
a. Date: March 22, 200086. J. P. Morgan v. Resource Marketing, Case No. D2000-0035b. Panelist(s): Anne-Virginie Gaide
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <efgprivatebank.com>, <efgpb.com>, <efg-private-bank.com>, <efgprivate.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 22, 2000b. Panelist(s): Richard W. Page, Chair; Mark V.B. Partridge; M. Scott Donahey
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <jpmorgan.org>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): 1) Replies and rebuttals not accepted, unless requested by panel under finding of exceptional matter; and 2) Failure to deny allegations allows Panel to draw adverse influences.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(c)(i), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 12, 14(b)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, ICANN Case No. D2000-0009; Cedar Trade Associates, Inc. v. Ricks, ICANN Case No. FA0002000093633; Aero-Turbine, Inc. v. Mcayman, Ltd., ICANN Case No. FA0002000093675; Travel Services, Inc. v. Tour COOP of Puerto Rico, ICANN Case No. FA0001000092524; Heelquik!, Inc. v. Goldman, et al., ICANN Case No. FA0001000092527; Easyjet Airline Co., Ltd. V. Steggles, ICANN Case No. D2000-0024; Mondich and American Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc., ICANN Case No. D00-0004; Stella D'Oro Biscuit Co., Inc. v. The Patrol Group, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0012; Nabisco Brands Co. v. The Patron Group, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0032; Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Network, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0022
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
87. Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Domain OZ, Case No. D2000-0057
a. Date: March 22, 200088. Biofield Corp. v. Jaehyun Kwon, Case No. AF00102b. Panelist(s): Frederick M. Abbott
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <adobeacrobat.com>, <acrobatreader.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b)(iv)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 3(c), 14(b)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, ICANN Case No. D2000-0044
j. Judicial decisions cited: Avery Dennison v. Sumpton, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 19954 (9th Cir. 1999); Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F. 3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)
a. Date: March 23, 200089. Finter Bank Zurich v. Gianluca Olivier, Case No. D2000-0091b. Panelist(s): M. Scott Donahey
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <biofield.com>
d. Response?: Informal
e. Principle(s): 1) Possible misunderstanding of person whose primary language is other than that of the Registration Agreement, which understanding may lead to a misunderstanding of the process, is grounds for finding an exceptional matter and requiring further statements and documents and a telephonic hearing; and 2) Rule 10(b) is paramount and panel must insure that each party has a fair opportunity to present its case.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(i), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 3(b)(xv), 4(a), 5(b)(iii), 5(b)(ix), 10(b), 11(a), 12, 13, 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Nabisco Brands Co. v. The Patron Group, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0032
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 23, 200090. Phone-N-Phone Services (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Shlomi (Saloman) Levi, Case No. D2000-0040b. Panelist(s): Francois Dessemontet
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <finter.com>, <finter.org>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Contents of trademark registered in the Swiss Register of Commerce constitute constructive notice to Swiss and foreign business people of the facts contained in the official Journal of the Registrar of Commerce as of the date of its publication.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: Arrets du Tribunal Federal, 107 II 362; Revue de Droit de la Propriete Intellectuelle, de l’Information et de la Concurrence 1999, 280-811; Rytz & Cie v. Rytz Industriebau AG, ATF 125 III 91; Paolo Gucci v. Guccio Gucci, ATF 116 II 619
a. Date: March 23, 200091. The British Broadcasting Corporation v. Renteria, Case No. D2000-0050b. Panelist(s): Joan Clark
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <phonenphone.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 23, 200092. Aeroturbine, Inc. v. Domain Leasing, Ltd., Case No. FA0002000093674b. Panelist(s): Andrew F. Christie
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <bbcdelondres.com>, <bbcenespanol.com>, <bbcenespanol.net>, <bbcenespanol.org>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 23, 200093. Avnet, Inc. v. Aviation Network, Inc., Case No. D2000-0046b. Panelist(s): Charles McCotter
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <aeroturbine.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 24, 200094. Allocation Network GMBH v. Gregory, Case No. D-2000-0016b. Panelist(s): Mark V. B. Partridge
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <avnet.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Offer to sell domain name for a mutually agreeable price does not establish bad faith unless Respondent has no legitimate prior interest in the name.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: Adaptive Molecular Technologies, Inc. v. Woodward & Thornton, Case No. D2000-0006
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 24, 200095. CSA Inrternational (a.k.a. Canadian Standards Association) v. John O. Shannon and Care Tech Industries, Inc., Case No. D2000-0071b. Panelist(s): Wolter Wefers Bettink
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <allocation.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): 1) Panel allowed rebuttal and invited further statement from Respondent; and 2) Respondent as broker of generic domain names has legitimate interest in the domain name at issue.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(c), 4(c)(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 24, 200096. EAuto v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc., Case No. D2000-0047b. Panelist(s): D. J. Ryan, Chair; R. A. Fashler; P. L. Sparbaro
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <csa-canada.com>, <csa-international.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Site set up by Respondent using Complainant’s marks for purpose of criticizing Complainant’s refusal to certify Respondent’s product, is directed toward a commercial end, especially since it advertizes the benefits of Respondent’s products and refers users to Respondent’s home page, where Respondent’s products are promoted.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), 4(c), 4(j)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 3(c)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: Cardservice International, Inc. v. McGee, 950 F. Supp. 737 (E. D. Va. 1997)
a. Date: March 24, 200097. Christian Dior Couture S.A. v. Liage International, Inc., Case No. D2000-0098b. Panelist(s): David H. Bernstein
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <eautolamps.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): When a domain name incorporates, in its entirety, a distinctive mark, that fact creates sufficient similarity between the mark and the domain name to render it confusingly similar.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c)(i), 4(c)(ii)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 24, 2000b. Panelist(s): Francois Dessemontet
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <babydior.com>, <babydior.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 3(b)(ix), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001;
j. Judicial decisions cited: Panavision v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998); Intermatic, Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. 1996); Framatome v. Association Internaute, Trib. Gde. Inst. Paris, April 25, 1997; Releais et Chateaux, Trib. Gde. Inst. Paris, February 22, 2000; Atlantel, Trib. Grande Instance Bordeaux, Ord. Ref. July 22, 1996 No. 1361/95 - 1543/96
98. Ranstad General Partner (U.S.), LLC v. Domains For Sale For You, Case No. D2000-0051
a. Date: March 24, 200099. Astromed, Inc. v. Merry Christmas Everyone! and B. Evans, Case No. D2000-0072b. Panelist(s): Andrew P. Bridges
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <officespecialists.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(iii), 4(b)(i), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5, 14(a), 14(b), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 27, 2000100. Bellevue Square Managers, Inc. v. Redmond Web and Brandon F. Moulton, Case No. D2000-0056b. Panelist(s): Clark W. Lackert
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <grasstelefactor.com>, <grass-telefactor.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Panel issued request to Complainant for additional evidence.
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b)(i), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(d), 10(a), 10(d), 12, 14(b)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, ICANN Case No. D2000-0009
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 27, 2000b. Panelist(s): Thomas D. Halket
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <bellevuesquare.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001; Cellular One Group v. Brien, Case No. D2000-0028
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
101. Which? Limited v. James Halliday, Case No. D2000-0019
a. Date: March 27, 2000102. Compaq Computer Corporation v. Boris Beric, Case No. D2000-0042b. Panelist(s): Ian Barker
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <goodfoodguide.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), 4(i), 15(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 12, 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: Flowers Inc. v. Phonenames Ltd. [2000] 1 P&T 325; British Telecommunications Plc and Others v. One In A Million Ltd and Others [1999] 1 WLR 903; Panavision Int’l v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998); New Zealand Port Ltd. v. Leng [1999] 3 NZLR 219; British Sugar Plc v. James Robertson & Sons, Ltd. [1996] RPC 281
a. Date: March 28, 2000103. Andrew Kohler v. STI (Jenny Lee), Case No. FA0001000093459b. Panelist(s): David Perkins
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <infopaq.com>, <smartpac.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 14(b)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, ICANN Case No. D2000-0003; World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: Panavision Int’l v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998); British Telecommunications Plc and Others v. One In A Million Ltd. and Others [1999] FSR 1
a. Date: March 27,2000b. Panelist(s): Harold Kalina
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <pantyexpress.com>, <pantyexpress.net>, <pantyexpress.org>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
104. China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co. Ltd. v. Cao Shan Hui, Case No. D2000-0066
a. Date: March 28, 2000105. CRS Technology Corporation v. Condenet, Inc., Case No. FA0002000093547b. Panelist(s): Ian Barker, Chair; Yong Li; Young Kim
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cosco.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(i), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited:
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001; D2000-0001; Harrods Limited v. Boyd, Case No. D2000-0060
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 28, 2000106. Infospace.com, Inc. v. Infospace Technology Co. Ltd., Case No. D2000-0074b. Panelist(s): R. Glen Ayers, Chair; Ross Carson; David H. Bernstein
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <concierge.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): 1) First issuance of separate concurring opinion; 2) Panel declines requests of Complainant and Respondent to make additional submission; and 3) The first to register a domain name should prevail in circumstances where the domain name is a generic word and where that word is widely used as a trademark or service mark
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c)(ii), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 3(b)(xiv), 4(c), 5(a), 10, 12
i. Panel Decisions cited: Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, ICANN Case No. D2000-0009
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
a. Date: March 28, 2000b. Panelist(s): Clive L. Elliott
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <microinfospace.com >
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None