Introduction Syllabus  Discussion  Rotisserie  Reference Search  Help  Change Password Forgot Password Feedback (not active)

THE ICANN CYBERSQUATTING DECISIONS #4 May 5 through June 13, 2000   © 2000  M. Scott Donahey  Tomlinson Zisko Morosoli & Maser LLP  200 Page Mill RoadSecond Floor  Palo Alto, CA 94306  Telephone: (650) 325-8666  Facsimile: (650) 324-1808  email: msd@tzmm.com  web site: www.tzmm.com     Vijaya Rangan Palaniswamy Harvard Law School The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy email: vpalanis@law.harvard.edu

1. January 14, 2000 through March 9, 2000
2. March 2, 2000 through April 6, 2000
3. April 7, 2000 through May 5, 2000
4. May 5, 2000 through June 13, 2000
5. June 14, 2000 through July 3, 2000

 

Mr. Donahey is a member of the panel of neutrals of the World Intellectual Property Organization and the eResolution/Disputes.org consortium, two of the three providers currently certified by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) to hear cases under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.  Mr. Donahey has served as a panelist in several cases, including The World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001, the first case to be heard under the new policy.

Mr. Palaniswamy is a second-year student in the joint program at Harvard Law School, where he is pursuing a J.D. and  the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, where he is seeking an M.A..  He is a graduate of the University of Georgia, where he received an A.B. in Honors Interdisciplinary Study, and a B.S. in Biochemistry & Genetics. Mr. Palaniswamy has served as a teaching fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and as a research assistant in the Global Intellectual Property Issues Division of the World Intellectual Property Organization.

 

The statistical analysis of the 138 cases which are digested in this issue reveals little deviation from past decisions.  Fifty-two per-cent of the cases were contested, and forty-eight per cent effectively were decided by default.  In only 15 cases did one of the parties elect a three-person panel.  The success rate of complainant’s was down slightly, at 74%, compared to the previous overall success rate of 79.6%.

What is most distressing is that cases which have cited at least one prior panel decision in arriving at their determination is only 28%.  This is a true failing of the ICANN process, which deprives it of the predictability that users of the process seek and should expect. The author is attempting to provide information to the panelists and the interested community generally which is necessary to the development of a system of law, but this effort is of only moderate usefulness, unless the system encourages and rewards the establishment and maintenance of precedent.

This issue I have selected two cases for more extended comment.  Both cases involve matters in which there are parallel proceedings in national courts, and both cases were decided by three-person Panels.  In the first case, Zero International Holding Gmbh & Co. v. Beyonet Services and Stephen Urich, ICANN Case No. D2000-0161, the dispute was between a German company and a United States resident over the domain name <zero.com>.  The American respondent requested a three person Panel.  The Panel consisted of a Belgian, an American, and an English chair.  The decision by the Panel was unanimous.
 
The German Complainant held a number of registered trademarks in Germany and various other European countries, only one of which predated Respondent’s registration of the domain name at issue, which occurred on June 10, 1992.  Respondent alleged that the mark which had been registered prior in time had been acquired by Complainant by assignment in mid-1999, one week after the Complainant had filed an action in the German courts.  Respondent also contended that the original registration had lapsed without renewal.  Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent requested that the Panel stay the action pending resolution of the trademark infringement action in the German courts, and the Panel ultimately decided against such a course of action. [1]

The German Complainant used its marks in conjunction with a retail clothing business that it conducted in at least five countries in Europe.  Respondent was a network engineer which used the domain name primarily for email and file transfer functions.  Respondent had registered the name because it was a common word, short, and easy to remember, and Respondent had never registered any other domain name.

The Panel conceded that the domain name at issue was identical to plaintiff’s mark.  However, the Panel found that Respondent had a legitimate interest in respect of the domain name and had not registered the name in bad faith.  The Panel found that “zero” was a common English word, and that although numerous entities may have acquired trademark rights relative to the word, it did not preclude its registration as a domain name on a “first come, first served” basis.

The Panel rejected Complainant’s contention that the .com gTLD was reserved for commercial organizations.  While that may have been the initial intent, the Panel found that the .com gTLD has been used for commercial and non-commercial purposes, by both organizations and individuals.  The Panel also rejected Complainant’s contention that Respondent’s failure to establish a web site utilizing the domain name constituted bad faith.  The Panel concluded that the Internet was available for many uses, including the email and file transfer operations utilized by Respondent.
 
Finally, Respondent requested that the Panel find that the Complainant was “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name” (reverse domain name hijacking).  Uniform Rules, Rule 15(e).  The Panel concluded that because the issue required the determination of issues of German law and procedure, the request would require that the Panel stay its determination until the German court had ruled.  This the panel declined to do, and denied Respondent’s request.

The second case, Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware, ICANN Case No. D2000-0187, involves the well-known, at least in America, manufacturer of outdoor barbeque grills as Complainant.  The respondent is an American hardware store which is authorized by Complainant to sell Complainant’s products and is licensed to use Complainant’s trademarks in advertising and sales of Complainant’s products.  In addition to filing the action under the Policy, Complainant also filed suit in United States federal court, alleging deceptive and misleading use of Complainant’s trademarks by Respondent and “cybersquatting.”  Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware and Building Supply, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6335 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2000).

In the federal court case, Respondent filed a motion to have the court declare the ICANN Panel decision non-binding and to stay the Federal court case pending the ICANN Panel decision, or alternatively, if the court were to find the ICANN decision to be binding, to stay the ICANN proceeding to permit the federal court to determine whether Respondent’s participation in the ICANN can be compelled.  Respondent was concerned that the Panel’s decision might be subject to only a limited review pursuant to the deference accorded to arbitral awards by the Federal Arbitration Act.

On May 3, 2000, the court issued its decision on Respondent’s motion.  The federal district court found that the Policy provided little guidance as to the standard of review which a federal court should apply to a Panel decision.  The court concluded that it was not bound by a Panel decision, but declined to determine the precise standard by which the court would review the Panel’s decision, nor to state what degree of deference (if any) the court would give to the Panel’s decision.  The federal court then stayed the federal case pending the outcome of the ICANN proceeding.
 
Only eight days later the ICANN Panel issued its decision.  Respondent had challenged the jurisdiction of the Panel, alleging that the proceedings in the United States District Court were the proper forum.  Respondent also argued that as an authorized sales representative for Complainant and a licensee of Complainant’s trademark rights, that its use of the domain name at issue could not be found to be in bad faith.

The Panel rejected Respondent’s argument that its use of the domain names <webergrills.com>, <webergrill.com>, <weber-grills.com>, <webergrillsource.com>, <webergrillstore.com>, webergrillshowroom.com>, <webergrills-ah.com>, <webgrills.com>, and <web-grills.com> were not confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, especially in light of the fact that Respondent displayed Complainant’s trademark at the web site to which the domain names resolved.

However, the Panel found that Respondent had established that it had a right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain names at issue. The use of Complainant’s mark was done in conjunction with sales of Complainant’s products, which Respondent was authorized to make.  Moreover, Complainant did not effectively rebut Respondent’s assertion that Complainant had been aware of and repeatedly approved Respondent’s web site over several years.

The Panel expressly rejected the Respondent’s challenge to the Panel’s jurisdiction.  The Panel noted that Respondent had contracted with the registrar, NSI, and as part of that contract, Respondent had agreed to be bound by any changes in the dispute resolution policy. Accordingly, Respondent agreed to be bound by the Policy, which was subsequently adopted by NSI.

In a concurring opinion, one of the three Panelists stated that the Panel should have stayed its proceedings pending the outcome of the United States District Court case, citing the District Court’s ability to provide for discovery and oral hearings.  The dissent also indicated that the Panel’s decision should not be accorded binding status nor be given any precedential weight, citing WIPO Internet Domain Name Process Report, ¶ 196(ii).[2]

The following are the digests of the latest one hundred thirty-eight cases:
 

274.  Powrachute Inc. v. Buckeye Industries, AF-0076(a)(b)(c)(d) 

a. Date: May 30, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Richard Hill
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <powrachute.com, powrachute.net, powrachutes.com, powrachutes.net>
d. Response?: Yes, email offered to relinquish domain names
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
 

275.  The Kittinger Co., Inc. v. Kittinger Collector, AF-0107(a)(b) 

a. Date: May 8, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Merton E. Thompson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <kittingercollector.com, kittinger.com>
d. Response?:  Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: Closely related to AF-0108
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

276. The Kittinger Co., Inc. v. Fisgus, AF-0108(a)(b) 

a. Date: May 8, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Merton E. Thompson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <kittengerfurniture.com, kittenger.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited:  None
i. Panel Decisions cited: Closely related to AF-0107
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

277. Royal Bank of Canada v. Xross, AF-0133 

a. Date: May 19, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Sandra A. Sellers
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <rbcinsurance.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Original decision of April 13, 2000 vacated due to “procedural deficiencies.” Respondent’s claim of conflict due to provider’s activities with Complainant (Complainant provides banking services to eResolutions) overruled: Para. 7 of Policy only requires panelist impartiality. Provider’s failure to comply with Respondent’s request for an impartial provider from neither Canada, USA, nor Tanzania (although an attempt was made to obtain a panelist from Israel) was not deemed material.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 7
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 12
i. Panel Decisions cited: Easyjet Airline Company, Ltd. v. Steggles, Case No. D2000-0024; J. P. Morgan v. Resource Marketing, Case No. D2000-0035; Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Inspectorate, Case No. D2000-0025; Ingersoll-Rand v. Frank Gully, d/b/a/ Advcomren, Case No. D2000-0021
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

278. Royal Bank of Canada v. Bankex International, Inc., AF-0150 

a. Date: May 2, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Mark A. A. Warner
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <royalebankonline.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 3(c), 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 1, 2(a), 3(b), 14(2)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Noodle Time, Inc. v. Max Marketing, Case No. AF-0100; Stella D’Oro Biscuit Co., Inc. v. The Patron Group, Inc., Case No. D2000-0012; The British Broadcasting Corporation v. Renteria, Case No. D2000-0050
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

279. Gassan Diamonds B.V. v. Jacobus, AF-0149(a)(b) 

a. Date: May 25, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Riccardo Roversi
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <gassan.com, gassandiamonds.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Transfer of <gassandiamonds.com>, but No Transfer of <gassan.com>
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15, 17(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

280. Carpenter v. Clement, AF-0148 

a. Date: May 14, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Enzo Fogliani
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <spotup.com>
d. Response?: Late response not considered
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 3(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(a), 5(e), 14(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

281. Westfair Foods, Ltd. v. Zelizney, AF-0153 

a. Date: May 30, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Richard D. Faulkner
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <westfairfoods.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Original panelist recused at request of one party after noting panelist is “affiliated” to one party.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001
j. Judicial Decisions and Statutes cited: Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 1246; ACPA (1999)

282. Bata Industries, Ltd. v. Bentley Online, Ltd., AF-0157(a)(b) 

a. Date: May 19, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Giovanni Ziccardi
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <batashoes.com, bata-shoes.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 3(c), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

283. Softquad Software Inc. v. Eleven-Eleven Ltd., AF-0143 

a. Date: June 1, 2000
b. Panelist(s): David G. Post
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <hotmetal.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 5, 14
h. Uniform Rules cited:
i. Panel Decisions cited: The Pep Boys Manny, Moe, and Jack of California v. E-Commerce Today, Ltd., Case No. AF-0145; Noodle Time, Inc. v. Max Marketing, Case No. AF-0100; Royal Bank of Canada v. Bankex International, Inc., AF-0150
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

284. 2E Corp. v. Imagisys, Inc., AF-0162 

a. Date: May 15, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Diane Cabell
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <2ecorp.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Lack of jurisdiction due to failure of Complainant to prove sufficient rights in mark.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a),
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial Decisions and Other Sources cited: Lanham Trade-Mark Act; Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition; Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982); McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th ed.); Nature’s Bounty, Inc. v. Basic Organics, 432 F. Supp. 546 (E.D.N.Y. 1977); Buti v. Perosa S.R.L., 139 F.3d 98 (2nd Cir. 1998)

285. Exclaim Technologies v. Net Exclamation, AF-0160 

a. Date: May 16, 2000
b. Panelist(s): David Allsebrook
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <exclaim.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

286. Arcturus Engineering Inc. v. Arcturus (a Corporation), AF-0156 

a. Date: May 19, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Alan L. Limbury
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <arcturus.com>
d. Response?: Response deemed late and not considered
e. Principle(s): Dispute as to when response filed resolved at discretion of panel. Panel resolved dispute based on time at eResolution’s Montreal website. Since Respondent filed at 10:30 p.m. on day of deadline in CA, time had expired since Montreal time was 12:30 a.m. the next day.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 2(f), 5(a), 5(e), 10(c), 14
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

287. Automobile Atlanta v. Dempsey, AF-0173 

a. Date: May 28, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Alfred C. Frawley
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <automobileatalanta.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishing, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987); Morrison & Foerster, LLP v. Wick, No. CIV. A. 00-B-465 (D.C.Colo. April 19, 2000)

 288. Spincycle, Inc. v. Spin Cycle, AF-0176

a. Date: May 29, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Riccardo Roversi
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <spincycle.com>
d. Response?: Late
e. Principle(s): Absence of any active behavior does not constitute “use.”
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5(b), 5(e), 7(b), 15(e)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Shelley Harrison v. Coopers Consulting Inc., Case No. AF-0121; Arcturus Engineering Inc. v. Arcturus (a Corporation), Case No. AF-0156
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

289. HSO Business Systems, Inc. v. Health Services Organization, AF-0152
 
a. Date: May 30, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Margaret Chon
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <hso.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

290. Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association v. InterAD Group, Inc., D2000-0202 

a. Date: May 22, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Roderick Thompson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sgma.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): None
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5, 14(a), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

291. Olly’s B.V. v. CPS Korea, D2000-0203 

a. Date: May 3, 2000
b. Panelist(s): George R. F. Souter
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <oilily.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Finding of bad faith use does not imply bad faith registration.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001; Nokia Corp. v. Nokiagirls.com a.k.a. IBCC, Case No. D2000-0102
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

292. Penguin Books Ltd. v. The Katz Family and Anthony Katz, D2000-0204 

a. Date: May 20, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James Bridgeman, Dean Henry H. Perritt, Jr., David H. Tatham
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <penguin.org>
d. Response?: Yes, also accepted Complainant’s Reply, and Respondent’s Sur-Reply
e. Principle(s): “Complainants opened the door to the Respondents offer to settle.” Settlement negotiations were not considered.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 3, 4(a), 6(f), 7
i. Panel Decisions cited: Nabisco Brands Company v. The Patron Group, Inc., Case No. D2000-0032; Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc., Case No. D2000-0039; World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001; Mondich v. Brown, D2000-0004; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003; Christian Dior Couture S.A. v. Liage International, Inc., Case No. D2000-0098; Vanguard Medica Limited v. Theo McCormick, Case No. D2000-0067; Finter Bank Zurich v. Gianluca Olivier, Case No. D2000-0091; Avnet, Inc. v. Aviation Network, Inc., Case No. D2000-0046; Gateway, Inc. v. Pixeleria.com, Inc., Case No. D2000-0109; Allocation Network GMBH v. Gregory, Case No. D-2000-0016; Telaxis Communications Corp. v. Minkle, Case No. D2000-0005
j. Judicial decisions cited: Panavision International L.P. v. Toeppen, 14 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998); Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp. 1227 (N.D. Ill. 1996); Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 1999 WL 635767 (9th Cir. 1999); Hom Ltd. v. Hatfield, 71 F. Supp 2d (D. Md. 1999); Giacalone v. Network Solutions, Inc. and Ty, Inc., Civ. Action No. C-96 20434 (N.D. Cal. 1996); Hasbro Inc. v. Clue Computing Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d. 117 (D. Mass. 1999)

 293. MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205

a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James Bridgeman
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <americansingle.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(a), 4(d), 5(a), 6(b), 6(f), 9, 10 (b), 10(c), 14, 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, Case No. D2000-0009; EAuto, L.L.C. v. EAuto Parts, Case No. D2000-0096; The British Broadcasting Corporation v. Renteria, Case No. D2000-0050; Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Steven S. Lalwani; Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Long Distance Telephone Company, Case Nos. D2000-0014 and D2000-0015; SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Tariq Masood and Solo Signs, Case No. D2000-0131
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

294. Columbia Sportswear Co. v. Keeler, D2000-0206 

a. Date: May 16, 2000
b. Panelist(s): David Perkins
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <columbiasportswearcompany.com, columbia-sports-wear-company.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

295. Milwaukee Radio Alliance, L.L.C. v. WLZR-FM LAZER 103, D2000-0209 

a. Date: June 5, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Paul Michael DeCicco
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <wlum.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 10(d), 15
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions and Statutes cited: In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973); Federal Rules of Evidence 408

296. Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 

a. Date: May 29, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Richard W. Page, Sally M. Abel, James Bridgeman
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <juliaroberts.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Decision based on common law trademark rights in name
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15
i. Panel Decisions cited: Winterson v. Hogarth, D2000-0235
j. Judicial Decisions and Statutes cited: U.S. Lanham Act

297. Thorntons Plc. v. One in A Million Ltd., D2000-0211

a. Date: May 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): William R. Cornish
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <thorntons.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Respondent has a history of registering brand names as evidenced by court case.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: British Telecommunications Plc. v. One in a Million Ltd. [1999]

298. Boardwalk Bank v. Thorogood, D2000-0213 

a. Date: May 20, 2000
b. Panelist(s): David W. Plant
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <boardwalkbank.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): When jurisdiction was questioned, Registrant’s continued use of the domain name after notification by the Center negates such a defense.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

299. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Bargman, D2000-0222

a. Date: May 29, 2000
b. Panelist(s): David M. Kelly
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <dodgeviper.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Commercial activity with a discussion forum negates fair use.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None300. Meredith Corp. v. CityHome, Inc., D2000-0223
 

 
300. Meredith Corp. v. CityHome, Inc., D2000-0223
 
a. Date: May 18, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Thomas L. Creel
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <countryhome.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

301. Nandos International Ltd. v. Farukhi, D2000-0225
 
a. Date: May 23, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Austin Amissah
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <nandos.com, nandoschicken.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Attempt to rent domain to trademark holder could be construed as bad faith attempt to profit from goodwill associated with the mark.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: Polaroid Corp. v. Hannaford and Burton [1975] 1 NZLR 566; General Electric Co. v. General Electric Co. Ltd. [1972] 1 WLR 729; British Telecommunications plc. v. One in a Million Ltd. [1998] 4 All ER 476

 

302. Parfums Christian Dior v. Quintas and Christiandior.net, D2000-0226
 
a. Date: May 17, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Geert Glas
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <christiandior.com, christiandior.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): “[T]he Domain Names are so obviously connected with such a well-known name and products that its very use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith” (citing D2000-0163). Constructive notice inferred from the popularity of the mark (citing D2000-0137).
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. D2000-0163; Expedia, Inc. v. European Travel Network, Case No. D2000-0137
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

303. Westfield Corp., Inc. and Westfield Ltd. v. Hobbs (Dynamic Marketing Consultants), D2000-0227
 
a. Date: May 18, 2000
b. Panelist(s): D.J. Ryan
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <westfieldshopping.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 10, 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, Case No. D2000-0150; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000- 0003
j. Judicial Decisions and Statutes cited: Trade Marks Act 1995 (Australia); Shell Co. (Aust.) Ltd. v. Esso Standard Oil (Aust.) Ltd., 109 CLR 407,
 
 

304. Cho Yong Pil v. ImageLand, Inc., D2000-0229
 
a. Date: May 10, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Young Kim
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <choyongpil.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Passing off likely due to prominence of Complainant’s name in Korean music industry..
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Steven S. Lalwani; Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Long Distance Telephone Company, Case Nos. D2000-0014 and D2000-0015; World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001; Harrods Limited v. Boyd, Case No. D2000-0060
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

305. Al-Anon Family Group Headquarters, Inc., v. Don Reid, D2000-0232
 
a. Date: June 5, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Jeffery M. Samuels
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <al-anon-alateen.org>
d. Response?: Yes, but not considered because it was late
e. Principle(s): Attempts by registrant to distinguish its site from complainant’s taken as evidence of good faith.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(a), 5(b), 5(e)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

306. Jordan Grand Prix Ltd. v. Sweeney, D2000-0233 
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Ian Barker
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <jordanf1.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(b), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. Disney, 57 CLR 448; Polaroid Corp. v. Hannaford and Burton Ltd. [1975] 1 NZLR 566; Hi-Bred Corn Co. v. Hy-Line Chicks Pty. Ltd. [1978] 2 NZLR 50; New Zealand Breweries Ltd. v. Heineken [1964] NZLR 115; re Broadhead’s Application (1950), 67 RPC 209; re Rysta’s Application (1943) 60 RPC 87; General Electric Co. v. General Electric Co. Ltd. [1972] 1 WLR 729; Berlei (UK) Ltd. v. Bali Brassiere Co. Inc. [1969], 1 WLR 1306; Levi Strauss & Co. v. Kimbyr Investments Ltd. [1994] 1 NZLR 332; British Telecommunications Plc and Others v. One in a Million Ltd. and Others [1999] 1 WLR 903; Panavision International LP v. Toeppen 141 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1998).
 
 

307. Winterson v. Hogarth, D2000-0235
 
a. Date: May 22, 2000
b. Panelist(s): David Perkins
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <jeanettewinterson.com, jeanettewinterson.net, jeanettewinterson.org>
d. Response?: Yes, late but admitted
e. Principle(s): Case involving common law trademark rights (noting legal rights still attach despite lack of registration).
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 2, 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Cedar Trade Associates, Inc. v. Ricks, Case No. FA0002000093633
j. Judicial Decisions and Statutes cited: Elvis Presley Trade Marks (1999) RPC 567 (C.A.); Trade Marks Act 1938 (U.K.); British Telecommunications plc v. One in a Million Ltd. (1999) FSR 1 (C.A.); A.G. Spalding & Bros. v. A.W. Gramage Ltd. (1915) 32 RPC 273; Glaxo plc v. Glaxo-Wellcome Ltd. (1996) FSR 388; Uncle MAC case [1947 2 All ER 845]; KOJAK case [Taverner Rutledge v. Trexpalm (1975) FSR 479]; WOMBLES case [1977 RPC 99]; ABBA case [1977 FSR 62]; Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Case [1991 FSR 145]

 

308. Hyosung Corp. v. HH, D2000-0236
 
a. Date: June 2, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Teruo Doi
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <hyosung.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Respondent’s use would result in dilution.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

309. Baby Creysi, Inc. et al. v. Asesoria en Computo Integral et al., D2000-0237
 
a. Date: May 22, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Marino Porzio
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <creysibodega.com, babycreysi.com>
d. Response?: Yes, but not sufficient, Respondent ruled in Default
e. Principle(s): Respondent requested “information” in Spanish, but the request was denied pursuant to Rule 11.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b),
h. Uniform Rules cited: 3(b), 11, 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

310. CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Edward Enterprises, D2000-0242
 
a. Date: May 24, 2000
b. Panelist(s): M. Scott Donahey
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cbs.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. v. Raymond, Case No. D2000-0007; Ronson plc v. Unimetal Sanayai ve Tic.A.S., Case No. D2000-0011; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003; Ingersoll-Rand v. Frank Gully, d/b/a/ Advcomren, Case No. D2000-0021; Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang, Case No. D2000-0055; Compaq Computer Corporation v. Boris Beric, Case No. D2000-0042; Association of British Travel Agents Ltd. v. Sterling Hotel Group Ltd., Case No. D2000-0086; Sanrio Co., Ltd. and Sanrio, Inc. v. Lau, Case No. D2000-0172; 3636275 Canada, dba eResolution v. eResolution.com, Case No. D2000-0110; Marconi Data Systems, Inc. v. IRG Coins and Ink Source, Inc., Case No. D2000-0090; Stralfors AB v. P D S AB, Case No. D2000-0112; InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Ofer, Case No. D2000-0075
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

311. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Saidi, D2000-0243
 
a. Date: June 2, 2000
b. Panelist(s): M. Scott Donahey
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cbs.org>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Rejecting dissent in D2000-0079, and ruling that offers made in the context of settlement discussions should not be barred. Offer to sell domain name “conclusively establishes” the registration as being in bad faith, except where Respondent has legitimate rights in the domain name.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 12, 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: J. P. Morgan v. Resource Marketing, Case No. D2000-0035; Motorola, Inc. v. NewGateInternet, Inc., Case No. D2000-0079; Avnet, Inc. v. Aviation Network, Inc., Case No. D2000-0046; World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
 

 
312. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Neoplanet Solutions, D2000-0248  
 
a. Date: June 2, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Christopher Tootal
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <mahindra.com>
d. Response?: No formal response
e. Principle(s): Supplementary submission accepted since it was (a) material to the dispute, and (b) could not be produced at an earlier date. Decisions regarding domain names under prior dispute resolution processes do not bar a Complainant from filing a UDRP complaint.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: Mahindra & Mahindra Limited v. Advansoft World Wide, Case No. D2000-0247
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

313. AT&T Corp. v. Alamuddin, D2000-0249
 
a. Date: May 18, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Ian Barker
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ATT2000.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Panel likens it’s finding of confusion as a “jury question.”
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(b), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003; World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: AT&T Corp. v Synet, Inc. (1977) WL 89228; Radio Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. Disney (1937) 57 CLR 448; Polaroid Corporation v. Hannaford and Burton Ltd. [1975] 1 NZLR 566; Hi-Bred Corn Co. v. Hy-Line Chicks Pty. Ltd. [1978] 2 NLZR 50; New Zealand Breweries Ltd. v. Heineken [1964] NZLR 115; re Broadhead’s Application (1950), 67 RPC 209; re Rysta’s Application (1943) 60 RPC 87; General Electric Co. v. General Electric Co. Ltd. [1972] 1 WLR 729; Berlei (UK) Ltd. v. Bali Brasserie Co. Inc. [1969] 1 WLR 1306; British Telecommunications Plc and Others v. One in a Million Ltd. and Others [1999] 1 WLR 903; Panavision International LP v. Toeppen 141 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1998)

 

314. Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman, D2000-0253
 
a. Date: May 29, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Jeffrey M. Samuels
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <quixtarmortgage.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

315. A.W.M.-Art World Media v. Informusique, D2000-0260
 
a. Date: May 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Christian Le Stanc
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <musicalis.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 3(b), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

316. Cellular One Group v. Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc., D2000-0268 
 
a. Date: May 30, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Thomas D. Halket
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cellular-one.net, cellone.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

317. TPI Holdings, Inc. v. Guida, D2000-0269
 
a. Date: May 23, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Clark W. Lackert
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <boatandrvtrader.com, boatrvtrader.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
 
 

318. Caterpillar Inc. v. Roam the Planet, Ltd., D2000-0275 
 
a. Date: March 25, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Joan Clark
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <catmachines.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 3(b), 5(b),
i. Panel Decisions cited: Stella D’Oro Biscuit Co., Inc. v. The Patron Group, Inc., Case No. D2000-0012; Nabisco Brands Company v. The Patron Group, Inc., Case No. D2000-0032; Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Network, Inc., Case No. D2000-0022; EAuto, L.L.C. v. Net Me Up, Case No. D2000-0104; Gateway, Inc. v. Pixeleria.com, Inc., Case No. D2000-0109; Pet Warehouse v. Pets.Com, Inc., Case No. D2000-0105
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

319. Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Millenium Depot, D2000-0276
 
a. Date: May 17, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Richard W. Page
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <alaskaairlines.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

320. Deutsche Bank AG v. Bruckner, D2000-0277
 
a. Date: May 30, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Jacques A. Leger
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <deutsche-bank-ag.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 14
i. Panel Decisions cited: Parfums Christian Dior v. Quintas and Christiandior.net, D2000-0226; Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. D2000-0163; Expedia, Inc. v. European Travel Network, Case No. D2000-0137
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
 
 

321. Forte (UK) Ltd. v. Ceschel, D2000-0283
 
a. Date: May 31, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Geert Glas
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <fortehotels.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): “It is not possible to conceive of a plausible circumstance in which Respondent could legitimately use the Domain Name . . . .”
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

 

322. PACCAR, Inc. v. Enyart Associates and Truckalley.com, LLC, D2000-0289 
 
a. Date: May 26, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Richard G. Lyon
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <kenworthtruck.com, kenworthtruck.net, kenworthtruck.org, peterbiltalley.com, peterbiltalley.net, peterbiltalley.org, kenworthalley.com, kenworthalley.net, kenworthalley.org>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
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

 

323. The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. DR Seagle, D2000-0308
 
a. Date: May 30, 2000
b. Panelist(s): J.C. Thomas
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <oxford-university.com>
d. Response?: Yes, but already in Default
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(b), 15
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
 
 

324. TV Globo Ltda. v. Akgul, D2000-0353
 
a. Date: June 2, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Antonio Mille
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <redeglobo.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f.    Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

325. Cree, Inc. v. The Domain You Have Entered is For Sale a/k/a Entredomains, Inc., FA#0005000094790
 
a. Date: May 25, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Louis E. Condon
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <creelighting.com, cree-lighting.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 4
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

326. The Snack Factory, Inc. v. Neologist, Inc., FA94660
 
a. Date: May 25, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Karl V. Fink
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <snackfactory.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

327. The Sawtooth Society, Inc. v. Jones, FA00040000094647
 
a. Date: May 22, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Robert S. Brandt
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sawtoothsociety.org, sawtoothsociety.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

328. American Quarter Horse Association v. Valentine, FA94628
 
a. Date: May 25, 2000
b. Panelist(s): R. Glen Ayers, Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <americanquarterhorseassociation.com, americanquarterhorsejournal.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

329. Rockport Boat Line (1994) Ltd. v. Gananoque Boat Line Ltd., FA0004000094653
 
a. Date: May 10, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Edmund P. Karem
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <rockportboatline.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

330. Best Access Systems v. Independent Security Systems, FA0004000094429
 
a. Date: May 19, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Robert R. Merhige, Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <bestlocks.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 4(a), 14
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
 

 
331. Signal Solutions Corp. v. Signal Solutions, FA94630
 
a. Date: May 25, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Carolyn Marks Johnson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <signalsolution.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): “By inference, Complainant met its burden of establishing that Respondent acted in bad faith by registering a domain name confusingly similar or identical to Complainant’s incorporated business name.”
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

332. Kohler Co. v. Thegerardgroup.com, FA94635
 
a. Date: May 22, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Carolyn Marks Johnson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <18004kohler.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

333. America Online, Inc. (“AOL”) v. Asian On-Line This Domain For Sale, FA0004000094636
 
a. Date: May 17, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Anthony J. Mercorella
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ao-l.org, ao-laustralia.com, ao-lchina.com, ao-leurope.com, ao-lhongkong.com, ao-lindia.com, ao-lindonesia.com, ao-ljapan.com, ao-lkorea.com, ao-lmalaysia.com, ao-lphillippines.com, ao-lsingapore.com, ao-lsouthamerica.com, ao-ltaiwan.com, ao-lthailand.com, ao-lus.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
 
 

334. America Online, Inc. (“AOL”) v. Calvin Gruneck This Domain is For Sale, FA0004000094634
 
a. Date: May 17, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Anthony J. Mercorella
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ao-l.com, ao-l.net, ao-lmail.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

 

335. International Speedway Corp. v. 24/7, FA0004000094444
 
a. Date: May 22, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Robert R. Merhige, Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <daytona-500.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 4(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

336. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Full System S.A.S, FA94637
 
a. Date: May 22, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Daniel B. Banks
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <openmail.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

 

337. Bibbero Systems, Inc. v. Tseu & Associates Co. and Tslin &Sons, Inc., FA0004000094416
 
a. Date: May 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Paul A. Dorf
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <bibbero.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

338. New York Press, Inc. v. New York Press, FA0004000094428
 
a. Date: May 18, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Edmund P. Karem
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <newyorkpress.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Addition of a generic term does not obviate geographic descriptiveness. Application for trademark with USPTO prior to dispute supports Policy 4(c)(iii) good faith use.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: In re BankAmerica Corp., 231 USPQ 873 (TTAB 1986); In re Cambridge Digital Systems, 1 USPQ2d 1659 (TTAB 1986)

 

339. Guccione Media, LLC v. Listentothis, FA0004000094430
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Paul A. Dorf
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <gearmagazine.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

340. Technology Properties, Inc. v. Burris, FA0004000094424
 
a. Date: May 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Daniel B. Banks, Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <radioshack.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

341. Veritas DGC, Inc. v. The Collectors Source and Edward T. Arrich, Jr., FA0004000094425
 
a. Date: May 8, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Ralph Yachnin
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <veritasdgc.net, veritasdgc.org>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(d)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

342. Mark Marney, The Golf Warehouse v. Golf Warehouse, FA0004000094419
 
a. Date: May 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Paul A. Dorf
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <golfwarehouse.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

 

343. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Homepage Organisation, FA0004000094446
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Herman D. Michels
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <hp.org>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

344. PT.H.M. Sampoerna v. Sanpoerna (Ametoy Tandy), FA0004000094417
 
a. Date: May 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Daniel B. Banks
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sampoerna.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

345. Hankison International v. Hankisoninternational.com, FA0004000094393
 
a. Date: May 3, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Irving H. Perluss
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <hankisoninternational.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Fictitious name registration creates a rebuttable presumption of an exclusive right to use (which was overcome in this case by the Complainant’s common law protection).
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 and Statutes cited: Lanham Act; California Business and Professions Code; Accuride Intern. Inc. v. Accuride Corp. (C.A. 9, 1989) 871 F.2d 1531

 

346. ESPN, Inc. v. Naughtya Page, LLC, FA0004000094397
 
a. Date: May 17, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Herman D. Michels
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <espn2.com, espn.net, espn2.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
 
 

347. America Online, Inc. v. 0ICQ.com Ltd., FA0004000094420
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Karl Fink
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <0icq.com, 0icq.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel Decisions cited: America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Communications Corp., Case No. FA0002000093668 (related to this case)
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

348. FloridaFirstBank and FloridaFIrst Bancorp v. Ozgunes, FA0004000094391
 
a. Date: May 15, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Karl V. Fink
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <floridafirstbak.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

349. Sunglass Hut Corp. v. AAANET, Inc., FA0003000094370

a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Carolyn Marks Johnson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sunglasshot.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

350. Mars Inc. v. J.C. Candy Store, FA000300094379
 
a. Date: May 3, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Irving H. Perluss
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <milkywaymidnight.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: Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc. (CA 9th, 1999) 184 F.3d 1107; Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993); Sleekcraft 559 F.2d at 354.

 

351. Mariah Boats, Inc. v. Shoreline Marina, LLC, FA0004000094392

a. Date: May 5, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Jonathan Hudis
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <mariahboats.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001
j. Judicial Decisions and Other Sources cited: McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th ed.); United States Jaycees v. Philadelphia Jaycees, 639 F.2d 134 (3rd Cir. 1981); Polaroid Corp. v. Polaroid Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961)

 

352. Datastream International Ltd. v. Micro Managament Systems, FA0003000094382
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Karl V. Fink
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <datastream.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None 

 

353. Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA0003000094381
 
a. Date: May 8, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Harold Kalina
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <davemattewsband.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

 

354. Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake Confidential, FA0003000094380
 
a. Date: May 8, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Harold Kalina
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <davemathewsband.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

 

355. Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. Streetwise Publishing, FA0004000094405
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Caroly Marks Johnson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <streetwise.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

356. Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Carson, FA0004000094394
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Carolyn Marks Johnson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <driverswanted.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None 
 
 

357. Lagasse v. VPOP Technologies, FA0003000094373
 
a. Date: May 8, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James Alan Crary
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <emeril.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 5(e), 14(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

358. Traditions Ltd., a Minnesota Corp. v. Noname.com, FA0004000094388
 
a. Date: May 8, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Harold Kalina
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <traditions.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

 

359. Sociedad Papiros Ltda. v. Rico, FA0003000094365
 
a. Date: May 16, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Robert R. Merhige, Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <papiros.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): “A guiding principle of law is that a Complainant must prove his, hers, or its claims by the greater weight of the evidence, in short by a preponderance--it follows of course that a decision must be based on evidence--devoid of speculation or conjecture.”
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(b), 4(a), 4(c), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None 

 

360. Morrison & Hecker L.L.P. v. Nameisforsale.com et al., FA0003000094386
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Robert R. Merhige, Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <morrisonhecker.com, morrisonandhecker.com>
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 and Statutes cited: ACPA

 

361. Lumena s-ka zo.o. v. Express Ventures Ltd. (www.skarbiec.com), FA0003000094375
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James Alan Crary
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <lumena.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): “The Policy [UDRP] is ‘minimalist’ calling for administrative resolution for only a small, special class of disputes in cases involving ‘abusive registrations.’ Cases cases involving legitimate disputes between the parties are relegated to the Courts.”
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 12
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

362. Mrs. America Productions, Inc. v. E.T. Corp., FA0003000094377
 
a. Date: May 15, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James Alan Crary
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <mrsamerica.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Mere registration of a domain name is not sufficient to establish legitimate interest in a domain name for the purposes of para. 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(e), 14(a), 14(b)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None 

 

363. Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Epicenter Communications, Inc., FA0003000094363
 
a. Date: May 26, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Richard B. Wickersham, Herman D. Michels, Andrew F. Christie
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <pharmore.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Dissent: Mere registration of a similar domain name not sufficient to constitute bad faith registration. Dissent: A pattern of conduct requires more than one act.
f. Result: Name Transfer (Dissent filed)
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None 

 

364. Soccerplex, Inc. d/b/a Soccerzone, Inc. v. NBA Inc., FA0003000094361
 
a. Date: May 25, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James P. Buchele, Karl V. Fink, Marilyn W. Carney
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <soccerzone.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

365. Genetics & IVF Institute v. E.Z.O.F., FA0003000094356
 
a. Date: May 19, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Richard DiSalle, Roderick M. Thompson, James A. Carmody
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <microsort.com, micro-sort.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 12
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

366. Tenenhaus v. Telepathy, Inc., FA0003000094355
 
a. Date: May 17, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James P. Buchele, Jeffrey M. Samuels, Neil A. Smith
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <daf.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
 
 

367. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., et al. v. Victoriassecret.org a/k/a Barnet Worldwide Enterprises, FA0003000094349

a. Date: May 15, 2000
b. Panelist(s): John J. Upchurch
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <victoriassecret.org>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Jurisdiction of Panel is valid given NSI’s incorporation of dispute resolution mechanism through the mechanism outlined in paragraph one of its service policy.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None 

 

368. Tall Oaks Publishing, Inc. and Slejko v. National Trade Publications, Inc., FA0003000094346
 
a. Date: May 5, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Jonathan Hudis
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ultrapurewater.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Prior inquiries made by Respondent counted as evidence of Complainant’s development of “at least some level of recognition and distinctiveness” (citing Rule 801(d)(2), Fed. R. Evid.).
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001
j. Judicial Decisions and Other Sources cited: Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976); Rule 801(d)(2), Fed. R. Evid.; Trademark Act, Section 33(b)(4); Polaroid Corp. V. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961); Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999

 

369. V Secret Catalog, Inc., et al. v. Internet Investment Firm Trust “In Trust,” FA0003000094344
 
a. Date: May 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James A. Crary, Robert R. Merhige, Nelson A. Diaz
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <victoriasecret.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 4(b), 5(e), 14(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

370. V Secret Catalog, Inc., et al. v. ARTCO, Inc., FA94342
 
a. Date: May 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James A. Carmody, Carolyn Marks Johnson, Karl V. Fink
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <victoriassecrets.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

371. Coming Attractions, Ltd. v. Comingattractions.com, FA0003000094341
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Carol Anne Been; G. Gervaise Davis, III; John J. Upchurch
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <comingattractions.com>
d. Response?: Unclear from opinion, but none indicated
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
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

 

372. Drew Kaplan Agency, Inc. v. Dak.com, FA0003000094328
 
a. Date: May 16, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Howard C. Buschman, III; Carol Anne Been; G. Gervaise Davis, III
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <dak.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): A panel “is not empowered to decide” issues beyond the scope of the Rules.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial Decisions and Other Sources cited: Lanham Act; McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th ed.); Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999) 
 
 

373. Planet Earth, Inc. v. Planetary Solutions, Inc., FA94362

a. Date: April 29, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Louis E. Condon
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <planetearth.com>
d.  Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 4
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

374. SoundScape, Inc. v. Soundscape, FA0003000094323
 
a. Date: April 26, 2000
b. Panelist(s): John Bender
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <soundscape.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

 

375. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Burgar d/b/a Hewlett Club, FA0002000093564
 
a. Date: April 10, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Daniel B. Banks, Michael Froomkin, Harold Kalina
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <hewlettpackard.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Dissent: Holding that bad faith use requires some activity. Dissent: Registration of “handles” or personal names (that are neither trademarks nor servicemarks) do not fall under the UDRP.
f. Result: Name Transfer (Dissent Filed)
g. Policy cited: In Dissent: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

376. Teradyne, Inc. v. 4Tel Technology, D2000-0026
 
a. Date: May 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Jordan S. Weinstein
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <4tel.com>
d. Response?: Yes, but not formally sufficient
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 3(b), 14(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

377. Franpin SA v. Paint Tools S.L., D2000-0052
 
a. Date: May 25, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Wolter Wefers Bettink
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <franpin.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

378. InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Delighters, Inc. d/b/a Cyber Joe’s Internet Cafe, D2000-0068
 
a. Date: May 1, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Mark Partridge
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <myinfospace.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
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: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: Northern Light Technology, Inc. v. Northern Lights Club, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4732 (D. Mass. March 31, 2000)

 

379. Gateway, Inc. v. Ayers, D2000-0106
 
a. Date: April 27, 2000
b. Panelist(s): William L. Mathis
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <gatewaypccountry.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(b), 4(c) 
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

380. Chernow Communications, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119
 
a. Date: May 18, 2000
b. Panelist(s): M. Scott Donahey, John Terry, David E. Sorkin
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ccom.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): A panel’s accessing of a disputed domain is akin to taking judicial notice. Dissent: Failure to allege a specific element of the claim will not be rectified by the Panel.
f. Result: Name Transfer (Dissent Filed)
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: The Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v. Powell, Case No. D2000-0038; SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Tariq Masood and Solo Signs, Case No. D2000-0131; Hewlett-Packard Company v. Cupcake City, Case No. FA0002000093562; InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Ofer, Case No. D2000-0075, EFG Bank European Financial Group SA v. Jacob Foundation, Case No. D2000-0036; Colgate--Palmolive Co. v. Kasinga, FA0002000094203; Marriott International, Inc. v. Café Au Lait, Case No. FA0002000093670; Slep_tone Entertainment Corporation d/b/a Sound Choice Accompaniment Tracks v. Christopher C. Dremann, Case No. FA0002000093636; NFL Properties, Inc. et al. v. Rahe, D2000-0128; Shirmax Retail Ltd./Detaillants Shirmax Ltee v. CES Marketing Group Inc., Case No. AF-0104; Barney’s, Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, Case No. D2000-0059; Finter Bank Zurich v. Gianluca Olivier, Case No. D2000-0091; Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corporation, Case No. D2000-0023; Ronson plc v. Unimetal Sanayai ve Tic.A.S., Case No. D2000-0011; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003; Mondich v. Brown, D2000-0004; Beverages and More, Inc. v. Glenn Sober Mgmt., Case No. AF-0092; Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, Case No. D2000-0010; World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001; Ventura Foods LLC v. Vijay Pathi, Case No. AF-0136; Draw-Tite, Inc. v. Plattsburgh Spring, Inc., Case No. D2000-0017; The Pep Boys Manny, Moe, and Jack of California v. E-Commerce Today, Ltd., Case No. AF-0145; Gateway, Inc. v. Pixeleria.com, Inc., Case No. D2000-0109; A.P. Moller v. Web Society, Case No. D2000-0135; The Durham Herald Co. v. Erwin S, Case No. FA0003000094312; Creo Products, Inc. v. Website in Development, Case No. D2000-0160; Ingersoll-Rand v. Frank Gully, d/b/a/ Advcomren, Case No. D2000-0021
j. Judicial Decisions and Other Sources cited: U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201 

 

381. The Chicago Tribune Co. v. Varkey, D2000-0133
 
a. Date: May 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): M. Scott Donahey, Sally M. Abel, Andrew P. Bridges
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <chicago-tribune.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

382. Cortefiel, S.A. v. Miguel Garcia Quintas, D2000-0140
 
a. Date: April 24, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Roberto A. Bianchi
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cortefiel.org>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 3(c), 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(b), 10 (a), 11, 14(a), 14(b), 15
i. Panel Decisions cited: Infospace.com, Inc. v. Hari Prakash, Case No. D2000-0076
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

383. Cortefiel, S.A. v. Javier Garcia Quintas, D2000-0141
 
a. Date: April 24, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Roberto A. Bianchi
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cortefiel.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 3(c), 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(b), 10 (a), 11, 14(a), 14(b), 15
i. Panel Decisions cited: Infospace.com, Inc. v. Hari Prakash, Case No. D2000-0076
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

384. Football Club des Girondins de Bordeaux v. Arr, D2000-0149
 
a. Date: May 19, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Anne-Virginie Gaide
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <girondinsdebordeaux.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(a), 12
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
 

 
385. Empresa Brasileira de Telecomunicacoes S.A. - Embratel v. Gustavo Teles, D2000-0155
 
a. Date: May 29, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Luiz Edgard Montaury Pimenta
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <embratel.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited:
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

386. Zero International Holding GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft v. Beyonet Services and Urich, D2000-0161
 
a. Date: May 12, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Nick Gardner; Gervaise Davis, III; Geert Glas
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <zero.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Use of domain for file Name Transfer and email purposes alone does not constitute bad faith use.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a),
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

387. Cortefiel, S.A. v. The Gallery Group
 
a. Date: May 2, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Roberto A. Bianchi
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <pedrodelhierro.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 3(c), 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i), 15
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 2(h), 5(b), 10(a), 11, 14(a), 14(b)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, Case No. D2000-0009; Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Inspectorate, ICANN Case No. D2000-0025; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003; Banco Espanol de Creditor, S.A. v. Miguel Duarte Perry Vidal Taveira, Case No. D2000-0018
j. Judicial Decisions and Other Sources cited: Spanish Unfair Competition Law; Spanish Trademark Law; nocilla.com case
 
 

388. Empresa Brasileira de Telecomunicacoes S.A. - Embratel v. McCarthy, D2000-0164
 
a. Date: May 15, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Antonio Mille
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <embratel.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Trademark holder not required to register all possible gTLDs and ccTLDs possible in order to protect mark.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003
j. Judicial Decisions and Other Sources cited: ACPA; Brazilian Trademark Act #5772; Paris Convention; 15 U.S.C. s. 1125 (a), (c), (d); Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 945 F. Supp. 1296 (C.D. Cal. 1996); Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language; ICANN Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy

 

389. Plaza Operating Partners, Ltd. v. Pop Data Technologies, Inc. and Pillus, D2000-0166
 
a. Date: June 1, 2000
b. Panelist(s): David H. Bernstein
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <plazahotel.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Involved two domain owners, so Respondents required to describe chain of ownership. When Center overlooked Respondent’s request for extension and granted another parties request, fairness dictates acceptance of late response.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b),
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(b), 5(a), 5(b), 5(d), 10(b), 10(c), 12, 14(b), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: CRS Technology Corporation v. Condenet, Inc., Case No. FA0002000093547; Pet Warehouse v. Pets.Com, Inc., Case No. D2000-0105; Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, Case No. D2000-0138; Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, Case No. D2000-0009
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

390. Scania CV AB v. Westlye, D2000-0169

a. Date: May 16, 2000
b. Panelist(s): George R. F. Souter
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <scaniabilar.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Sufficiently popular marks can be interpreted to have been known to registrants without specific evidence to that effect. Registrants excessive offer to Complainant’s request to settle considered an element of bad faith.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001; Nokia Corp. v. Nokiagirls.com a.k.a. IBCC, Case No. D2000-0102
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

391. Europay International S.A. v. Eurocard.com, Inc., EuroCard.org, and Folkening, D2000-0173
 
a. Date: May 22, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Robert A. Fashler
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <eurocard.com, eurocard.org>
d. Response?: Yes, but late, response not considered
e. Principle(s): Late replies will only be considered upon proof of exceptional circumstances. Discrepancy between electronic copy and hardcopy ruled harmless as being a “clerical oversight.”
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 5(a), 5(d), 5(e), 10(c), 14(a), 14(b), 15(b)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: Uniphase Corp. v. JDS-Uniphase.com, Inc. and JDSUniphase.com ( N.D.Cal., San Jose Division, C-99 20536); Zeneca Ltd. And Astra USA, Inc. v. The Stat and Folkening (S.D.N.Y., 99 Civ. 1670); Interleaf, Inc. v. Hunter Investments and Folkening (S.D.Indiana, Indianapolis Div., IP99-0791)

 

392. Interep National Radio Sales, Inc. v. Internet Domain Names, Inc., D2000-0174
 
a. Date: May 26, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Clark W. Lackert
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <eradio.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 15(e)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, Case No. D2000-0009; World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001; Car Toys, Inc. v. Informa Unlimited, Inc., Case No. FA0002000093682; General Machine Products Company, Inc. v. Prime Domains, Case No. FA0001000092531; Shirmax Retail Ltd./Detaillants Shirmax Ltee v. CES Marketing Group Inc., Case No. AF-0104; Storage Technology Corporation v. Network Systems GA, Inc., Case No. FA0002000094188; Allocation Network GMBH v. Gregory, Case No. D-2000-0016; Phone-N-Phone Services (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Shlomi (Saloman) Levi, Case No.D2000-0040; Telaxis Communications Corp. v. Minkle, Case No. D2000-0005; Unitil Resources, Inc. v. Robert Ampe, Case No. FA0002000093553;
j. Judicial decisions cited: Continental Airlines Inc. v. United Air Lines Inc., 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (T.T.A.B. 2000)
 
 

393. Interep National Radio Sales, Inc. v. Technical Staffing Corp., D2000-0175
 
a. Date: May 26, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Clark W. Lackert
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <e-radio.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 15(e)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, Case No. D2000-0009; World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001; Shirmax Retail Ltd./Detaillants Shirmax Ltee v. CES Marketing Group Inc., Case No. AF-0104;
j. Judicial decisions cited: Lanham Act; ACPA

 

394. Washington Mutual, Inc. and WM Financial Services, Inc. v. Bryan Weatherup d/b/a Weatherup & McIntosh Financial Services, D2000-0176
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Clark W. Lackert
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <wmfinancialservices.com>
d. Response?: No formal response
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 5(a), 5(d), 10(d), 12, 14(b)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

395. Medisite S.A. R.L. v. Intellisolve Ltd., D2000-0179
 
a. Date: May 19, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James Bridgeman
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <medisite.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Late notification considered harmless when remedied without prejudice to either party. Complainant bears “onus” (emphasis in original) of proof.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 1, 3, 5, 6(f), 10(a), 12, 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited:  Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003; Mondich v. Brown, D2000-0004
j. Judicial decisions cited: Pianotist Co’s Application (1906) 23 R.P.C. 774 
 
 

396. DFO, Inc. v. Williams, D2000-0181
 
a. Date: May 14, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Dennis A. Foster
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <dennys.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Failure to use optimal name for chat group seen as evidence of no legitimate use in name.
f. Result: Name Transfer
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

 

397. The Southern Co. v. Chad Doms a/k/a Folkening, D2000-0184
 
a. Date: May 8, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Jeffrey M. Samuels
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <southerncompany.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001
j. Judicial decisions cited: Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp. 1127 (ND Ill. 1996); Panavision International v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998)

 

398. ABF Freight System, Inc. v. American Legal, D2000-0185
 
a. Date: May 9, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Andrew P. Bridges
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <timekeeper.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Adopts Telstra finding that bad faith use can be done through inactivity.
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5, 14(a), 14(b), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003
j. Judicial decisions cited: None.

 

399. LIBRO AG v. NA Global Link Ltd., D2000-0186
 
a. Date: May 16, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Tosten Bettinger
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <libro.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Lack of document translation by the Center does not delay a Respondent’s deadline.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 3(b), 11
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

400. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware, D2000-0187
 
a. Date: May 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Matthew D. Powers, Richard W. Page, Jordan S. Weinstein
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <webergrills.com, webergrill.com, weber-grills.com, weber-grill.com, webergrillsource.com, webergrillstore.com, webergrillshowroom.com, webergrills-ah.com, webgrills.com, web-grills.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s): Jurisdiction satisfied when bad-faith use and registration alleged in Complaint. Concurrence: hearing should be suspended until decision of parallel district court case in interest of judicial economy.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent (Concurrence Filed)
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: Draw-Tite, Inc. v. Plattsburgh Spring, Inc., Case No. D2000-0017
j. Judicial decisions cited: ACPA
 
 

401. United States Olympic Committee v. MIC, D2000-0189
 
a. Date: May 4, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Jeffrey M. Samuels
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <usolympicstore.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001
j. Judicial Decisions and Statutes cited: 36 USC 220502; Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F. Supp. 1127 (N.D. Ill. 1996); Panavision International v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998); 36 U.S.C. 220501; 15 U.S.C. 1127 
 
 

402. International Data Group, Inc. v. The Applied Media Co., Inc., D2000-0191

a. Date: June 6, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Thomas D. Halket
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <publish.org>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001; Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Inspectorate, ICANN Case No. D2000-0025
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

403. Formula One Licensing BV v. Formula One Internet, D2000-0193
 
a. Date: May 28, 2000
b. Panelist(s): William R. Cornish
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <f1.com>
d. Response?: Late response accepted under exceptional circumstances
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

404. Gateway, Inc. v. Cadieux, D2000-0198

a. Date: May 25, 2000
b. Panelist(s): William L. Mathis
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <pcgateway.net, pcgateway.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): Due to “flawed” Registrar’s report, Panel chose to use a WHOIS report to determine Registrant.
f. Result: Decision for Respondent re: <pcgateway.com>; Name Transfer of <pcgateway.net>
g. Policy cited: 3(c), 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h. Uniform Rules cited: 1, 2(a), 3(b) , 3(c)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None
 
 

405. Marriott International Inc. v. Radu, FA0002000093637

a. Date: March 30, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr.
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <marriott-hotels.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): “The use of the domain name by Respondent could cause substantial damage to the rights and property of Complainant.” (emphasis added)
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

406. Youtv Inc. v. Alemdar, FA0003000094243
 
a. Date: April 25, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Edmund P. Karem
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <youtv.net>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(d)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

407. America Online, Inc. v. Barrutia, FA0003000094265
 
a. Date: April 17, 2000
b. Panelist(s): James P. Buchele
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <aolmoviefone.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

 

408. Strasburger & Price, LLP v. NameIsForSale.com, FA0003000094290
 
a. Date: May 18, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Robert S. Brandt
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <strasburgerprice.com, strasburgerandprice.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: None
h. Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c)
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

409. Current USA, Inc. v. Current Event, FA94300
 
a. Date: April 17, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Paul A. Dorf
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <current.com>
d. Response?:   Yes
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Name Transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None

 

410. Sandy Frank Entertainment, Inc. v. Law Street, Inc. a/k/a Wall Street, Inc., FA0002000093669
 
a. Date: April 1, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Gilbert T. Cave
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <youaskedforit.com>
d. Response?: Late response allowed at Panelist’s discretion
e. Principle(s):
f. Result: Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited: None
i. Panel Decisions cited: None
j. Judicial decisions cited: None 

 

411. Pfohl v. Semenik Systems, Inc., FA0002000093546
 
a. Date: April 10, 2000
b. Panelist(s): Herman D. Michels
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue: <thetotalpackage.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 and Statues cited: Latham [sic] Act, 15 U.S.C. s.1125
 
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The Policy provides that “[t]he mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded.” Policy, ¶ 4,k. The Uniform Rules provide in pertinent part: “In the event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision.” Uniform Rules, Rule 18(a).

[2]That provision states: ”The determinations flowing from the administrative procedure would not, as such, have weight of binding precedent under national judicial systems.”