| Introduction |
| Syllabus |
| Discussion |
| Rotisserie |
| Reference |
| Search |
| Help |
| Change Password |
| Forgot Password |
| Feedback (not active) |
| Process | Bad Faith | Rights | Choice of Law |
|
Overview | Decisions |
|
|
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
4. 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 most recent batch of cases to be digested, 156 in all, bring the total number digested to date to 568. The recent cases are statistically interesting in that they represent several significant departures from prior trends. While cases in which the respondent has defaulted or in which a response was not considered because of some procedural irregularity has historically run at about 40% of the total cases, in the most recent cases to be digested, the number of cases in which no response was onsidered jumped to 49%. At the same time, the percentage of cases in which the respondent prevailed jumped from the historical 10% range to 17%. Also, the number of cases which cited at least one prior panel decision increased to 32% from its historical percentage of 25%. Parties still chose one person panels over three person panels by a significant margin, 93% to 7%.Two cases suggested that a successful respondent may be subject to a form of double jeopardy, at least where the finding that led to the respondent prevailing was failure to show that the respondent had used the domain name in bad faith: Loblaws, Inc. v. Yogeninternational, ICANN Case No. AF-0164; Sporoptic Pouilloux S.A. v. William H. Wilson, ICANN Case No. D2000-0265. Two other cases suggested new approaches to the resolution of ICANN disputes. The first, Loblaws, Inc. v. Charlo Barbosa, ICANN Case No. AF-0163, suggested a new test re burden of proof and burden of persuasion. The second, Cigna Corporation v. JIT Consulting, ICANN Case No. AF-0174, suggested an “admission by silence” test to be applied against respondents. These four cases merit extended discussion.
In Loblaws, supra, the panel was faced with a case in which the complainant had established that the domain name was confusingly similar to complainant’s mark, and that respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. Because of the extensive use of the mark by complainant in the region in which the Respondent was located, the panel found that the respondent had to have registered the domain name in bad faith. However, the panel agonized over the requirement of bad faith use. The respondent’s domain name resolved to an “under construction” web page. There was no evidence that the respondent had offered the domain name for sale to the complainant or to anyone else. The panel distinguished the situation in the famous Telstra case, since in the case before the panel the respondent had not taken any steps to conceal its identity by providing false information to the registrar. The panel also distinguished Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, ICANN Case No. D2000-0010, since, unlike that case, the respondent had not posted either an advertisement that the domain name was for sale, nor a counter which gave an indication of value. In summary, the panel found that the complainant had not proved that the respondent had used the domain name in bad faith. However, the panel went on to note that the respondent may still be brought before an ICANN panel in the future should circumstances change:
"This decision should not prevent the Complainant from returning to this forum should the Respondent begin using its domain name in some fashion.
The nature of such use would obviously affect the analysis of both the bad faith registration and bad faith use elements of the ICANN Policy, and
could, given the Panel’s findings regarding the first two factors, bring a different result."
In Sporoptic, supra, the domain name at issue was <buyvuarnetsunglasses.com>. The panel had no problem in deciding that the domain name was confusingly similar to complainant’s marks, that respondent had no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name, and that the domain name had been registered in bad faith. Once again, the issue turned on whether the domain name had been used by respondent in bad faith. The panel attempted to access the web site to which the domain name would resolve and found that respondent had not established a web site through use of the name. The panel performed other checks in order to determine that the domain name at issue was not being used to manage email. Accordingly, the panel determined that the complainant had failed to establish that respondent had used the domain name at issue in bad faith. However, once again, respondent found that it had not escaped the reach of the ICANN procedure into the future:
"It seems fair to add that Complainant did not waste its time by submitting this case. The decision will go on record to state that the domain name
was registered in bad faith and that any use of it would necessarily be in bad faith. That decision, when served upon the Respondent, may serve as a
warning to him not to “use” the domain name in any way. The findings of this panel may also assist future Panels in deciding a case that Complainant
would be free to submit again under the Policy (since circumstances of fact will in fact no longer be the same) should Respondent start any form of
“use” of the domain name in the future."
In Loblaws, supra, the panel was faced with a situation in which no appearance had been made by respondent, but that complainant had failed to establish
by factual evidence all of the three required elements. The panel suggested a novel approach in such situations:". . . [T]his Panelist rejects the literal interpretation of ICANN Policy and Rules because, by punishing complainants for failing to proffer evidence
that is unavailable to them and creating an incentive to respondents, particularly those without meritorious defenses, to gain tactical advantage by
evading their obligation to respond, it is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of ICANN Policy to create an efficient and fair dispute resolution
procedure. An alternative interpretation, [sic] is to distinguish between the burden of proof in the sense of the burden of persuasion and the burden
of production and allow for the shifting of the latter. Under this approach, once a complainant produces sufficient evidence that the contested
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark or service mark, the burden of production should shift to the
respondent to introduce evidence demonstrating its rights to and legitimate interest in the domain name, as well as its good faith in registering and
using it. If the respondent meets this burden of production, then the burden shifts back to the complainant to rebut the respondent’s evidence. If,
on the other hand, the respondent either submits no response or its response presents insufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of production, a
finding of the absence of right, or legitimate interest , or good faith on the part of the respondent becomes compelled as matter of law, rather than
merely permitted as an inference. Placing the burden of production on elements two and three on respondents is fully consistent with ICANN Rule
5(i), which requires a respondent to submit affirmative evidence and not merely deny complainant’s allegations."
In Cigna Corporation, supra, the panel also suggested a new procedural device for evaluation of the evidence before it: the “admission-by-silence.” The panel found that the respondent’s failure to respond to a letter sent to it prior to the initiation of the ICANN procedure that contained an allegation that the registration of the domain name violated complainant’s trademark rights constituted an “admission-by-silence” of the allegation and the establishment that respondent had no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name at issue. In the same letter, complainant stated that “[w]e request that you immediately cease and desist from any further use of the domain and immediately cancel the domain registration.” The panel found that “[a] reasonable person confronted with the implication that it is using a registered domain name within the context of a ‘cease and desist’ letter would be moved to respond with a correction or denial if such implication were untrue. [Respondent’s] failure to respond acts as an “admission-by-silence” that it is using the domain name. Without evidence to the contrary, this admission is enough to find the domain name to be ‘in use.’” The panel went on to find that [respondent’s] admission (by its silence) to using the domain name, and further like admission that it is violating [complainant’s] trademark rights, are sufficient, absent evidence to the contrary, to show that [the domain name at issue] has been registered and is being used in ‘bad faith.’”The following is the digest of the recent cases.
412. Anne of Green Gables Licensing Authority,
Inc., v. Internetworks, AF-0109
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Perry M. Amsellem
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <anneofgreengables.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
413.
American Media Operations, Inc. v. Simons, AF-0134
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Henri Alvarez
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <wwwnationalenquirer.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), 14(a), 14(b), 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Brookfield Communications
Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F 3rd 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)
414.
Loblaws, Inc. v. Yogeninternational, AF-0164
a.
Date:
June 9, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Kevin W. Grierson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <presidentschoicesocks.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): “Based upon both the number of Complainant's registered marks
and the breadth of goods and services covered by those marks, and
in the absence of any showing that the Respondent has any rights in the
domain name, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interest in the domain name presidentschoicesocks.com.”
Distinguishes from prior decisions that have found bad faith in passive
use.
Following Canadian law, Panel interprets Policy based on extrinsic evidence
of framer’s intent. No double jeopardy protection—“[t]his decision
should not prevent the Complainant from returning to this forum should
the Respondent begin using its domain name in some fashion.”
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
British Travel Agents Ltd. v. Sterling Hotel Group Ltd., D2000-0086; Telstra
Corporation Limited v. Nuclear
Marshmallows, D2000-0003; Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors,
D2000-0010;.
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: R v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R.
688
415.
Loblaws, Inc. v. Presidentchoice.Inc/Presidentchoice.com, AF-0170(a)(b)(c)
a.
Date:
June 7, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jessica Litman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <presidentchoice.com, presidentchoice.net,
presidentchoice.org>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Filing complaint without evidence of Respondent’s bad faith
registration or use and without proper investigation “is indicative of
bad
faith” (regarding a charge of reverse domain name hijacking). UDRP
not designed to prevent dilution of famous marks—only reaches bad faith
registrations where there is no legitimate interest.
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 12, 15(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Kittinger Company v. Kittinger Collector, AF-0107; Meredith Corp. vs. CityHome,
Inc., D2000-0223;
Microcell Solutions v. B-Seen Design Group, AF-0131; Shirmax Retail Ltd.
v. CES Marketing Group Inc., AF-0104; Breakthrough
Software, Inc. v. Hendrick Huigen, AF-0122; Interep National Radio Sales,
Inc. v. Internet Domain Names, Inc., D2000-0174.
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
416. Cigna Corp. v. JIT Consulting, AF-0174
a.
Date:
June 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Paul Michael DeCicco
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cignadirect.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): Respondent’s failure to answer Complainant’s “letter
of November 1, 2000 [sic]” constitutes an admission of the allegations
therein.
By registering a domain name that infringes on the rights of a third party,
Respondent breaches its agreement with the Registrar—thereby
“divest[ing] [Respondent] of any rights or interests in the subject domain
name. For this reason alone, the Panel finds that [Respondent] has no right
or legitimate interest in the domain name ‘cignadirect.com’.” A pattern
of registration does not equal a pattern of deprivation. Rejects
doctrine of
Passive Bad Faith Use as discussed in Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallow,
but accepts “admission-by-silence.”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003.
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
417. Fibrocap, Inc. v. Vanseo International,
Ltd., AF-0184
a.
Date:
June 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Kevin Trock
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <spacekap.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), 5(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
418. Angus Chemical Co. v. National Event
Photography, AF-0215
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Joel R. Reidenberg
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <nitrofuel.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), 5(a), 14(a), 14(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
419. Shultz v. Leo, FA0003000094359
a.
Date:
April 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <turqoisebuffalo.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), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
420. General Media Communications,
Inc. v. JMR Creations, FA0004000094387
a.
Date:
June 1, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
John A. Bender
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <penthouse.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), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
421. Hudson Optical Corp.
v. Purchasepro.com, FA0004000094418
a.
Date:
May 31, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson, Robert R. Merhige, Jeffrey M. Samuels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <eyevantagemarketplace.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Dissent: “[R]egistration of a mark constitutes constructive
notice of the registrant's claim of ownership thereof (see 15 U.S.C.§
1072),
the mere filing of an application has no such effect”
f.
Result: Name Transfer, Dissent Filed
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 and statutes and Statutes cited: 15 U.S.C.§
1072
422. Hewlett-Packard Co.
v. Zuccarini, FA0004000094454
a.
Date:
May 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gilbert T. Cave
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <hewlitpackard.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
423. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
& Co. v. Hussain, FA0004000094449
a.
Date:
May 31, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson, H. Curtis Meanor, Nelson A. Diaz
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <msdwprivateequity.com, msdwpe.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), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
424. Wells v. Eleven Entertainment, FA0004000094453
a.
Date:
June 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard DiSalle
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <royalheirs.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 and statutes cited: None
425. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. v. Bulldog, Inc., FA94427
a.
Date:
May 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Alan Crary
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <statefarmcatteam.com, statefarmhail.com, statefarmhailrepair.com,
statefarmhailteam.com, statefarmsavings.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes and Statutes cited: ACPA
426. Kinko’s, Inc. v.
eToll, Inc. f/k/a E Corp, FA94447
a.
Date:
May 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Alan Crary
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <kinkosoffice.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
427. Sports Car World, Inc. v. Cracknell,
FA0004000094448
a.
Date:
May 31, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Herman D. Michels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sportscarworld.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
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), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
428. Safway Steel Products, Inc. v. Café
Au Lait, FA94631
a.
Date:
May 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Alan Crary
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <safeway.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 5(a), 14(a), 14(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
429. Travelocity.com LP v. Ten Travel,
FA94632
a.
Date:
May 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
R. Glen Ayers, Jr.
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <prevuetravel.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes, but not formally compliant
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), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
430. Kasparov v. American Computer Co.,
FA0004000094644
a.
Date:
May 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
John A. Bender
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
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 statutes cited: None
431. Afterimage Studios, Inc. v. Applewood
Publishing, FA0004000094643
a.
Date:
May 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
John A. Bender
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <bulkmale.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 statutes cited: None
432. Strombecker Corp. v. Just Service,
Inc., FA94450
a.
Date:
May 31, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
R. Glen Ayers, Jr.
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <strombecker.com
d.
Response?:
Yes, not in compliance, but accepted
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), 5(a), 5(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Lanham Act
433. CMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Bottai, FA0004000094661
a.
Date:
May 31, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Herman D. Michels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <chuckberry.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), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
434.
Upstream v. The Simple Solution LLC, FA0004000094451
a.
Date:
June 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Nelson A. Diaz
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <enchilada.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent (typo on NAF index)
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 and statutes cited: None
435. V Secret Catalogue, et al. v. PM Websites,
FA94652
a.
Date:
June 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Karl V. Fink, Nelson A. Diaz, James A. Carmody
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <victoriasecret.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: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
436. Brite-Lite, Inc. v. Von Wolf FX, FA0004000094641
a.
Date:
June 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard B. Wickersham
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <britelite.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
437. Accu Weather, Inc. v. Global Net 2000,
Inc., FA0004000094645
a.
Date:
June 1, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard B. Wickersham
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <acuweahter.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 2(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
438. Exec-U-Net, Inc. v. Exec-U-Net, FA0004000094639
a.
Date:
June 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard DiSalle
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <exec-u-net.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): “Respondent’s knowledge of the use of the name and trademark
before selecting her company’s name is a clear indication of her bad
faith and a willful disregard of the complainant’s trademark.”
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 and statutes cited: None
439. Miadora, Inc. v. Gemkey America Corp.,
FA0004000094650
a.
Date:
May 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Karl V. Fink
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <meadora.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: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
440.
Pricegrabber.com v. O’Connor, FA0004000094651
a.
Date:
June 5, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Charles K. McCotter
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <pricegrabber.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes, but late
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
441. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. v. Life En Theos, FA0004000094663
a.
Date:
June 1, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard Wickersham
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <statefarmcustomerservice.com, statefarm-insurance.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 3(b), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes and Statutes cited: 15 U.S.C. §1125
442. UFCW International Union v. Union Automation,
FA0004000094665
a.
Date:
June 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James A. Carmody
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ufcw.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes, but not timely
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), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
443. Schimpff v. Sumpton, FA0003000094333
a.
Date:
June 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Irving H. Perluss
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <bassets.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),
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes and other sources cited: McCarthy,
Traders and Unfair Competition; Nutri/System v. Con-Stan Indus., Inc.
(9th Cir. 1987) 809 F.3d 601, 605; Webster’s Third New International Dictionary,
Unabridged (1959); Lanham Act; Creager v. Russ Togs,
Inc. (CD Cal. 1982) 218 USPQ 582; Trademark Dilution Act of 1996
444. Hudson Optical Corp. v.
Vision Corp., FA0004000094415
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Anthony J. Mercorella; Charles K. McCotter, Jr.; Neil Smith
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <eyevantage.com, eyevantage.net, eyevantage.org>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
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 and statutes cited: None
445. The Aarque Companies v. Aarque Graphics,
FA0004000094669
a.
Date:
June 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Bruce E. Meyerson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <aarque.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
446. Expressdata Corp. v. MSM Express Data
Services, FA94721
a.
Date:
June 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Karl V. Fink
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <expressdata.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: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
447. The North Face Inc. v. SAND WebNames
– For Sale, FA94722
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Alan Crary
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <northface.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
448. National Cable Satellite
Corp. v. Black Sun Surf Co., FA94738
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Alan Crary
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cspan.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: 5(e), 14(a), 14(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
449. The Hain Food Group and Celestial Seasonings,
Inc. v. MIC, FA0005000094729
a.
Date:
June 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
William H. Andrews
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <haincelestial.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), 5(a), 14
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
450. Hollywood Casino Corp. v. B.F. LLC,
FA0005000094733
a.
Date:
June 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Bruce E. Meyerson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <casinohollywood.com>
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(a), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
451. Referee Enterprises, Inc.
v. Planet Ref, Inc., FA0004000094707
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Theodore R. Kupferman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ereferee.com, ereferee.net, ereferee.org>
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 and statutes cited: None
452. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA0005000094730
a.
Date:
June 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Theodore R. Kupferman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <statfarm.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
453. Kessler Rehabilitation Corp.
Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Santos, FA0005000094789
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Robert T. Pfeuffer
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <kesslerinstitute.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
454. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. v. Pierce, FA0005000094808
a.
Date:
June 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Bruce E. Meyerson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <statefarmjobs.com, statefarmcareers.com>
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), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
455. Zale Delaware Inc. v. Tedesco, FA0005000094799
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Robert R. Merhige, Jr.
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <baileybanksandbiddle.com, gordonsjewelers.com,
gordonsjewelers.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
456. The Denver Post Corp. v. Home in USA,
FA0005000094792
a.
Date:
June 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Robert R. Pfeuffer
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <thedenverpost.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
457. Daniel Galvin, Hair Colour Consultants
Ltd., Daniel Galvin Productions Division Ltd., and Daniel Galvin Ltd. v.
Reliablemarketing,
FA0005000094802
a.
Date:
June 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Herman D. Michels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <danielgalvin.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), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
458. State Farm Mutual Automobile v. HPR,
FA0005000094829
a.
Date:
June 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Irving H. Perluss
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <likeagoodneighborstatefarmisthere.com,
andlikeagoodneighborstatefarmisthere.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 and statutes cited: 15 U.S.C. s.1125(c);
Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy;
Panovision Intern. L.P. v. Toeppler (9th Cir. 1998) 141 F.3d 1316, 1324-1325
459. Accu-Find Internet Services v. AccuFind,
FA0005000094831
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gilbert T. Cave
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <accufind.com, accufind.net>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions and statutes cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes and statutes cited: None
460. Dickey-john Corp. v. Sensor-1,
Inc., FA0005000094835
a.
Date:
June 21, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Daniel B. Banks, Jr.
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <dickeyjohn.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 and statutes cited: None
461. Johnson & Johnson v. Ethnor.com,
FA0005000094862
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Robert R. Merhige
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ethnor.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 and statutes cited: None
462. Commercial Publishing Co.,
Inc. v. Webicons, Inc., FA0005000094825
a.
Date:
June 21, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Daniel B. Banks
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <thelawerslist.com>
d.
Response?:
Not formally sufficient
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 4(i)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
463. Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. Chisholm
Internet Consultants, FA0005000094854
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Daniel B. Banks, Jr.
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <usmoneymart.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 and statutes cited: None
464. Geddes v. Carmony, FA0005000094866
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Ralph Yachnin
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <anngeddes.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
465. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. v. Zazza, FA0005000094865
a.
Date:
June 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jonathan Hudis
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <likeagoodneighbor.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
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:
Sandy Frank Entertainment, Inc. v. Law Street, Inc. a/k/a Wall Street,
Inc., FA0002000093669
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Brookfield Communications,
Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999);
Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied,
368 U.S. 820 (1961); Data Concepts Inc. v. Digital
Consulting Inc., 150 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 1988)
466. Texaco, Inc. v. Texaco
Domain Canada, FA0005000094869
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Paul A. Dorf
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <texacocanada.com>
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: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
467. Interactive Media Group
(Canada) Ltd. v. Café au Lait, FA0005000094893
a.
Date:
June 28, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <telepersonals.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited:
4(a), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 14
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA94637; America Online, Inc.
v. QTR Corp., FA92016;
Marriott International, Inc. v. Café au Lait, FA93670; Youtv v.
Mr. Erkan Alemdar, FA94243
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Board of Regents v. Stinson-Head,
Inc., 504 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
468. Sappi, Ltd. v. Croeser,
FA94894
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Louis E. Condon
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sappi.org, sappi.net>
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 and statutes cited: None
469. Telular Corp. v. Smart Call, FA0005000094899
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
R. Glen Ayers
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <phonecell.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): “Even though the Respondent acknowledges use of the
Complainant’s mark on its site (“Phonecell is a registered trademark of
Telular Corp. Full acknowledgement to Telular & their trademark is
given here.”), this recognition, in small print at the bottom of the site,
is not
enough to overcome the infringement upon the Complainant’s mark.”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited:
4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA94637; Hydraroll Limited v.
Morgan Corp., FA 94108
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
470. National Moving Network,
Inc. v. American Van Lines, FA94872
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Louis E. Condon
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <nationalmoving.com, nationalmovingnetwork.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
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 and statutes cited: None
471. The Law Society v. M.A. Sears, D2000-0342
a.
Date:
June 7, 2000
b.
Panelist(s): William R. Cornish
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <thelawsociety.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
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 and statutes cited: None
472. General Electric Co. v. Mark White
and Associates, D2000-0344
a.
Date:
June 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Frederick M. Abbott
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <gelightingsystems.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 14(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, D2000-0044
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Avery Dennison v. Sumpton
(9th Cir. 1999), 189 F.3d 868; 15 USCS § 1057; 15 USCS § 1125;
Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036, 1047,
n. 8, (9th Cir. 1999); Sporty's Farm v. Sportsman's
Market, 202 F.3d 489, 498, (2d Cir. 2000)
473. Argyle Diamond Sales Ltd. v. Silverado,
Pete Lancashire, D2000-0345
a.
Date:
June 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Clive L. Elliott
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <argylediamonds.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): Adopts the analysis of D2000-0012 and D2000-0032, “that the
registration of domain names featuring the names or products of
other well-known third parties is evidence of bad faith . . . .” “The Panel
does not consider that the mere inclusion of a statement evidencing an
interest in selling or leasing a Domain Name, by itself, indicates that
such selling or leasing would be in exchange for valuable consideration
exceeding the Respondent’s relevant costs. “
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 Entertainment, Inc. v. Bosman, D99-0001; Stella
D’Oro Biscuit Co. v. The
Patron Group, Inc. D2000-0012; Nabisco Brands Co. v. The Patron Group,
Inc. D2000-0032
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
474. The Chase Manhattan Corp.
et al. v. Whitely, D2000-0346
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Dennis A. Foster
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <chasemerchantservices.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited:
4(a), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 10, 12, 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Lalwani, 2000-0014;
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v.
Long Distance Telephone Co., 2000-0015
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
475. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Net-Promotion,
Inc., D2000-0347
a.
Date:
June 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Geert Glas
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <champagneclicquot.com, champagne-clicquot.com,
chmpagnecliquot.com, champagne-cliquot.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
476. Winfield Capital Corp.
v. DASC, Inc., D2000-0349
a.
Date:
June 11, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard W. Page
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <winfieldcapital.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
477. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Brown, D2000-0350
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Ross Carson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <prozacpages.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes, but formally deficient
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 5
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
478. TV Globo Ltda. v. Akgul, D2000-0353
a.
Date:
June 2, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Antonio Millé
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <redeglobo.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 and statutes cited: None
479. Internet America, Inc.
v. Internet America, D2000-0355
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard W. Page
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <internetamerica.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
480. Interactive Television
Corp. v. Noname.com, D2000-0358
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Mark V.B. Partridge, Milton L. Mueller, David M. Kelly
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <interactivetelevision.com, interactivetv.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Claimed mark ruled to be generic, thus does not satisfy the
requirements of 4(a). Trademark Examiner’s conclusion in this regard
deemed persuasive, “although not controlling . . . .”
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Pet Warehouse v. Pets.Com, Inc., D2000-0105
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Feathercombs, Inc. v. Sole
Products Corp., 306 F.2d 251 (2d Cir. 1962); Kellog Co. v. National
Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938); Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heilemann Brewing
Co., 561 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1977); 15 U.S.C. 1064
481. Vattenfall AB v. P D S,
D2000-0359
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jonas Gulliksson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <vattenfall.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows No. D2000-0003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Swedish Match AB, et al v.
Tony Lennartsson, Control Alt Delete Stockholm AB, and PDS; Folksam
Omsesidig Sakforsakring, et al v. Tony Lennartsson and Control Alt Delete
Stockholm AB
482. Air New Zealand, Ltd. v. Christand
Co. Ltd., D2000-0360
a.
Date:
June 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
D.J. Ryan
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <airnewzealand.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
483. Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source,
D2000-0362
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Mark V.B. Partridge
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <0xygen.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): Threat to use domain name to traffic porn supports a finding
of bad faith use and registration. (citing Hasbro)
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b) , 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Hasbro, Inc. v. Internet Ent.
Group, Ltd., 1996 WL 84853 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 1996).
484. The University of Wyoming v. Horton,
D2000-0366
a.
Date:
June 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jeffrey M. Samuels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <uwcowboys.com, wyomingcowboys.com, uwyo.com,
uwyoming.com, wyocowboys.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
485. Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Sally M. Abel
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <beaniesbabies.com, beanybabies.com, beanybaby.com,
ty.org>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited:
4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 3(c), 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Domain OZ, D2000-0057; Mondich v. Brown,
D2000-0004; Yahoo! Inc. v.
Eitan Zviely, et al., D2000-0273
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
486. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. v. News
Commentary, D2000-0371
a.
Date:
June 23, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Dana Haviland
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <wjfk.com>
d.
Response?:
No formal response
e.
Principle(s): “ICANN counsel responded in an email to the Respondent stating
that: ‘the sufficiency of particular complaints under the Uniform
Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Polidy and the Uniform Rules is a matter
to be decided by the panel and provider, not for ICANN. Accordingly,
you should direct your inquiries to the provider or, if a panel has been
appointed, to the panel through the provider.’” “[P]ursuant to Rule 12
the
Panel may request further information from the parties and that the parties
should not offer it sua sponte.” “The Policy and Rule do not provide
for
the filing of motions, and Respondent’s motion to dismiss clearly violates
both the letter of Rule 5 and the spirit of the Rules and the Policy .
. . .”
“The barnacles of litigation practice encrusting the record in this case
have no place in an ICANN domain name proceeding.”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited:
4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5(b), 8, 10(a), 12, 14(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Barney’s Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, D2000-0059;
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael
Bosman, D99-0001
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
487. The Board of Governors of the University
of Alberta v. Katz d/b/a Domain Names for Sale, D2000-0378
a.
Date:
June 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Dawn Osborne
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <universityofalberta.com, albertau.com>
d.
Response?:
Late, but accepted (citing Talk City)
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited:
4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 12
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Talk City Inc, v. Robertson, D2000-0009;
Easyjet Airline Co. Limited v. Steggles, D2000-0024
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Universities Act of Alberta,
RSA 1980; Trade Marks Act of Canada, RSC 1985
488.
Skydraft AB v. Control Alt Delete, D2000-0381
a.
Date:
June 13, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Knud Wallberg
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <skydraft.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): Passive holding constitutes use. (citing Telstra)
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003; S.S. Société
Générale de Surveillance
S.A. v. Inspectorate D2000-0025; Strålfors AB v. PDS AB, D2000-00112;
Siba AB v. Torbjörn Hellerstad, D2000-00146
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Swedish Match AB et al v.
Tony Lennartsson, Control Alt Delete, Stockholm AB and PDS, and
Folksam Omsesidig Sakforsakring, et al v. Tony Lennartsson and Control
Alt Delete Stockholm AB
489. Credit Libanais SAL v. Skaf, D2000-0382
a.
Date:
June 25, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Bahieldin H.Z. Elibrachy
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <creditlibanais.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): “The argument that the Complainant does not conduct
any activities in the USA is not convincing. The .com identifier is not
necessarily restrictive to companies operating in the USA.” “We do not
admit into evidence Respondent’s settlement offer. Settlement offers should
not be used to compromise the legal positions of the parties.”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
490. Kyocera Mita Corp. and Kyocera
Mita America, Inc. v. Office Land, D2000-0385
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Alan L. Limbury
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <copystar.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited:
4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation Entertainment,
Inc. v. Michael Bosman, D99-0001
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Brookfield Communications,
Inc. v. West Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1054 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1999),
citing Public Serv. Co. v. Nexus Energy Software, Inc., 36 F. Supp. 2d
436 (D. Mass 1999), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1994, No. 98-12589 (D.
Mass. Feb. 24, 1999); Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 21 F.
Supp. 2d 1003, 1005 (D. Minn. 1998); Interstellar Starship Servs. Ltd.
v. Epix, Inc., 983 F. Supp. 1331, 1335 (D. Or. 1997); Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
3338, No. 97-0629 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 1997, aff’d, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir.
1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 90 (1998).
491. General Electric
Co. v. Bakhit, D2000-0386
a.
Date:
June 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Frederick M. Abott
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <general-electric.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 14(a), 14(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, D2000-0044
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: 15 USCS § 1057; Avery
Dennison v. Sumpton (9th Cir. 1999), 189 F.3d 868; Brookfield
Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036, 1055 (9th Cir.
1999); Sporty's Farm v. Sportsman's Market, 202 F.3d 489,
498, (2d Cir. 2000)
492. The Step2 Co. v. Softastic.com Corp.,
D2000-0393
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
William L. Mathis
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <step2.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 and statutes cited: 15 U.S.C. § 1072
493. General Electric Co. v. Forddirect.com,
Inc., D2000-0394
a.
Date:
June 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Frederick M. Abbott
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <gecapitaldirect.com, gecaldirect.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited:
4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 14(a), 14(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, D2000-0044; Aurora Foods Inc. v.
David Paul Jaros, D2000-0274
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: 15 USCS § 1057; 15 U.S.C.
1072; Avery Dennison v. Sumpton (9th Cir. 1999), 189 F.3d 868;
Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036, 1055
(9th Cir. 1999); Sporty's Farm v. Sportsman's Market, 202
F.3d 489, 498, (2d Cir. 2000)
494. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone,
D2000-0397
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Tom Arnold
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <twilight-zone.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: 4(c)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
495. Charles Jourdan Holding
AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jacques A. Léger
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <charlesjourdan.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): Found opportunistic bad faith use in Respondent’s actions
due to notoriety of Complainant’s marks.
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. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net D2000-0226;
Veuve Cliquot
Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., D2000-0163
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
496. City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri
a/k/a City Utilities v. Davidson, D2000-0407
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jeffrey M. Samuels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cityutilities.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Dicta: Respondent’s offer to sell does not constitute bad
faith use when the offer is prompted by an inquiry from the Complainant.
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
497. Suntex International, Inc. v. 24game,
D2000-0408
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gaynell C. Methvin
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <24game.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 and statutes cited: None
498. Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho
(Japan Corp.) d/b/a Hitachi, Ltd. v. Fortune International Development
Ent. Co. Ltd.,
D2000-0412
a.
Date:
July 2, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Clive L. Elliott
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <hitachi2000.net>
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:
Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows, Case No. D2000-0003;
Nabisco Brands Company v.
The Patron Group, Inc. Case No. D2000-0032
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
499. BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co KG v.
Tweed, D2000-0418
a.
Date:
June 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Henry Olsson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <tippex.com, tipp-ex.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, 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
500. Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Barry Cheng
Kwok Chu, D2000-0423
a.
Date:
June 21, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
John Terry
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <telstrashop.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): “In this case the Panelist has been able to conclude a decision
in favour of the Complainant despite a less than satisfactory state of
evidence and without the benefit of legal submissions after the evidence
has closed. Revision of the Policy and Rules may be desirable.”
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:
Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Australian Trade Marks
Act 1995
501. Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady,
D2000-0429
a.
Date:
June 25, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Dennis A. Foster
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <rollerblade.net>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): This panel requires the existence of a “legitimate
trademark interest in [the] Respondent” in order for the Respondent to
claim a right
in the domain name.
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
A.P. Moller v. Web Society, D2000-0135; Banco Espanol de Credito, S.A.
v. Taveira, D2000-0018
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
502. Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Chekroun,
D2000-0478
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Henry Olsson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ikeaworld.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes, initially deficient but amended
e.
Principle(s): The Response, which was in French, violated Rule 11(a)’s
requirement that it be in the same language as the administrative
proceeding (English).
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 3(b), 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 5(b), 11(a), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
503. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v.
Avant Garde Composition, D2000-0130
a.
Date: June 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Geert Glas, Alain Bensoussan, Dana Haviland
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cromalin.com, chromalin.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): American Complainant v. French Respondent: French law
applied--“[I]t should be noted that this letter cannot be considered
confidential (and thus shall be taken into consideration by the Panel)
as alleged by Respondent, since under the principles of French law a letter
sent
by an attorney to another person which is not an attorney himself cannot
be considered confidential.”
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 12, 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
504. Grove Broadcasting Co. Ltd. v. Telesystems
Communications Ltd., D2000-0158
a.
Date:
May 9, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Robert A. Fashler
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <iriefm.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 12, 14(a), 14(b), 15(a), 15(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
505. The Richards Group, Inc. v. Click Here!,
Inc. , D2000-0171
a.
Date:
April 25, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Thomas D. Halket
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <clickhere.net>
d.
Response?:
Respondent Default, but formally insufficient response examined
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman, Case
No. D99-0001
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
506. Bartercard Ltd. & Bartercard
International Pty. Ltd. v. Asthon Hall Computer Services, D2000-0177
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Clive L. Elliott
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <bartercard.org>
d.
Response?:
Communications received, but no formal response
e.
Principle(s): Involves a claim of third party intervention, allegedly
“for the purposes of delay only.” “Panel has a discretion to terminate,
suspend
or continue with a decision where court proceedings are in progress or
are subsequently initiated.” “The Panel considers that the jurisdiction
of the
Panel and that of the Court are separate and distinct and note that each
has different powers and requirements upon it. Accordingly, the Proceeding
and the Court proceedings are different and can operate in parallel.”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 18
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
507. Slumberland France v. Acohuri,
D2000-0195
a.
Date:
June 10, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Christian Le Stanc
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <epeda.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Hearings suspended during a period of negotiation between
parties. Mark held as being well-known according to standards
of
Paris Convention. Although there is “no clear evidence of Respondent’s
registration and use . . . in bad faith,” Complaint accepted due to
Respondent’s assent to complaint.
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b). 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 11(a), 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Paris Convention (art. 6 bis)
508. Georgia Gulf Corp. v. The Ross
Group, D2000-0218
a.
Date:
June 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jeffrey M. Samuels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <georgiagulf.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes (apparently answers to response were allowed)
e.
Principle(s): Complaint involving unregistered mark: “under U.S.
trademark law, rights attach upon use of the mark in commerce.”
Distinguishes
Penguin Books Ltd. v. The Katz Family and Anthony Katz. Follows Mondich
v. Brown.
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited:
4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Penguin Books Ltd. v. The Katz Family and Anthony Katz, D2000-0204; Mary-Lynn
Mondich and American
Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc v. Shane Brown, d/b/a Big Daddy’s Antiques,
D2000-0004
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
509. Lloyds TSB Bank Plc. v. Brittain, D2000-0231
a.
Date:
June 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Bridgeman, Austin Amissah, Frederick Mostert
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <lloydstsb-visa.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): “Since both Parties are resident in England it seems
appropriate that the laws of England and Wales should be applied to this
question.” “The Respondent has submitted that he has a right
to comment on the Complainant's services. This is quite distinct from the
right in the
name/domain.” Example of a case where public comment crossed the
line to bad faith use.
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4, 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Pianotist Co's Application
(1906) 23 R.P.C. 774
510. J. Garcia Carrion, S.A. v. Frias, D2000-0239
a.
Date:
May 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Aleberto Bercovitz
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <donsimon.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., D2000-0022; Christian Dior
Couture S.A. v. Liage Int’l Inc.,
D2000-0098
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
511. Yahoo! Inc. v. Ashby, D2000-0241
a.
Date:
June 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David W. Plant
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <yahooventures.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
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:
Yahoo! Inc. v. Eitan Zviely, Zvieli Fisher, F.Z., OZ domains, E.Z.O.F,
E&O Domains, and Fisher Zvieli,
D2000-0273
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
512. TV Globo Ltda. v. Radio Morena, D2000-0245
a.
Date:
June 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Antonio Mille
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <globoesporte.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s): Distinguishing holding of Juno Online ("registration and
warehousing of a domain name without establishment of a connected web site
does not constitute use in commerce nor create a likelihood of confusion
or deception in the public") as not applicable in this case since respective
claims to the mark are not equal. Distinguishing Clue Computing (“held
that ownership of a registered trademark, even corresponding to a
well-known brand, does not automatically entitle its owner to use of the
corresponding domain name") since respondent did not have “a similar
‘innocent and legitimate reason for using the famous mark.’ ”
Unsolicited supporting documentation beyond original complaint not considered.
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Justice of Sao Paulo State
in rem "TV GLOBO Ltda. v. Editora de Jornais e Revistas Ltda”; Brazilian
Trademark Act Lei nº 9.610, de 19 de Fevereiro de 1998, Art. 10; in
Juno Online Services, L.P. v Juno Lighting, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 684;
1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15699 (USDC N.D. Ill. 1997); Network Solutions, Inc.
v Clue Computing, Inc., 946 F. Supp 858; 1996 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 18013; 41 U.S. P.Q. 2d 1062 (USDC D. Colo. 1996); Lanham Act
513. CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Groves, D2000-0254
a.
Date:
May 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David W. Plant
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
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: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
514. CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Sale’s (NYCBS-DOM)
et al., D2000-0255
a.
Date:
May 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David W. Plant
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <nycbs.com>
d.
Response?: Yes, but formally insufficient
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 and statutes cited: None
515. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment,
Inc. v. Bessette, D2000-0256
a.
Date:
June 7, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David M. Kelly
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <wwwwwf.com, wwwstonecold.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): Typo-piracy case. Bad faith evidenced by providing
fictitious contact information to Registrar. Tarnishment considered
as a factor
in proving no legitimate use/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 and statutes cited: Hasbro, Inc. v. Internet Entertainment
Group, Ltd., 40 USPQ 2d 1479 (W.D.Wa. 1996); Toys "R" Us,
Inc. v. Mohamad Ahmad Akkaoui, 40 USPQ2d 1836 (N.D. Cal. 1996).
516. LIN Television Corp. v. Home In USA
and Home In USA, Inc., D2000-0257
a.
Date:
June 2, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Tom Arnold
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <wavytv.com, wavy-tv.com, wavytv10.com,
wavy-tv10.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Respondent’s claim of “ ‘[winning] the race to the
registrar’ . . . reeks of bad faith intent.”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 4(c)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
517. Frank Wagner & Son v. Cindy Mahan
a/k/a Cindy Maham, D2000-0261
a.
Date:
June 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Thomas D. Halket
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <frankwagnerandson.com, frankwagnerandsoninc.com,
fwandson.com, fwson.com, wagneracrossamerica.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: 15(a),
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
518. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Jose, D2000-0263
a.
Date:
June 7, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Bridgeman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <tridenthotels.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes, but late
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 4(a), 5(e), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003; Mondich and American
Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc. v.
Brown d/b/a Big Daddy’s Antiques, D2000-0004
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
519. Televisa v. Retevision
Interactiva S.A., D2000-0264
a.
Date:
June 28, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Olivier Iteanu
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <eresmas.com, eresmas.net, eresmas.org>
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 and statutes cited: None
520. Sporoptic Pouilloux S.A.
v. Wilson, D2000-0265
a.
Date:
June 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Massimo Introvigne
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <buyvuarnetsunglasses.com>
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 Wrestiling Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman, D99-0001
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
521. Document Technologies, Inc. v.
International Electronic Communications Inc., D2000-0270
a.
Date:
June 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s): David H. Bernstein, Andrew Frederick Christie, Christopher
Peter Tootal
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <htmlease.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): “Although Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that
the Complainant prove the presence of this element (along with the other
two),
once a Complainant makes out a prima facie showing, the burden of production
on this factor shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing by
providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests
in the Domain Name. “ “If Complainant believes that cross examination of
Respondent's evidence would successfully prove bad faith registration and
use, it will need to resort to a forum, like a United States court, that
permits for a more probing, searing search for the truth.”
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited:
4(a), 4 (b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: Rule 12
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
CRS Technology Corp. v. CondeNet, Inc., FA0002000093547; Pet Warehouse
v. Pets.Com, Inc.,
D2000-0105; Plaza Operating Partners, Ltd. v. Pop Data Technologies and
Joseph Pillus, D2000-0166; Eauto L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto
Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc., D2000-0047
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Marvel Comics Ltd. v. Defiant,
a division of Enlightened Entertainment Ltd., 837 F. Supp. 546
522. Yahoo! Inc. v. Zviely, et al., D2000-0273
a.
Date:
June 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David W. Plant
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <atlantayahoo.com, ayahoo.com, bostonyahoo.com,
cayahoo.com, dcyahoo.com, dfwyahoo.com, jahu.com,
kyahoo.com, layahoo.com, nyahoo.com, nyyahoo.com, pageryahoo.com, seattleyahoo.com,
wyahoo.com, yaghoo.com, yahjoo.com, yahoa.com,
yahooca.com, yahoode.com, yahooe.com, yahoof.com, yahoofr.com, yahoola.com,
yahoony.com, yahoop.com, yahoouk.com, yahop.com,
yahpoo.com, yalhoo.com, yaohh.com, yashoo.com, yayou.com, yhahoo.com, yhu.com,
yiahoo.com, youhoo.com, yuahoo.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:
Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003; Adobe Systems Inc.
v. Domain OZ,
D2000-0057
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
523. Auroroa Foods Inc. v. Jaros,
D2000-0274
a.
Date:
June 7, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Frederick M. Abbott
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <duncanhine.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Visual Information Institute
v. Vicon Industries, 209 USPQ 179 (TTAB 1980).
524.
Mission KwaSizabantu v. Rost, D2000-0279
a.
Date:
June 7, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
John Terry
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <kwasizabantu.com, kawasizabantu.org,
kwasizabantu.net>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): “The domain names of the Respondent can be characterised
as creating initial interest confusion even though closer inspection of
the
website will result in such initial confusion being displaced and deception
avoided. However, such initial confusion is not enough for a Complaint
to
justify remedy under the Policy.” “[T] Panel holds that the expression
"business" must be liberally construed to cover activities concerning the
supply
of some goods or services and in respect of which a reputation may be gained.”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
525. Red or Dead Ltd. v. Kid Pty. Ltd. a/k/a
Kid Enterprises Pty. Ltd., D2000-0280
a.
Date:
June 23, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Ross Carson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <redordead.com>
d.
Response?:
Acknowledged receipt of complaint, but no formal response
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
526. Massachusetts Medical Society
v. Karle, D2000-0282
a.
Date:
June 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Dana Haviland
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <newenglandjournalofmedicine.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), 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Steven S. Lalwani, D2000-0014; Bennett
Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Long
Distance Telephone Company, D2000-0015; World Wrestling Federation
Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman, D99-0001; Parfums
Christian Dior v. QTR Corporation, D2000-0023
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
527. Competitive Advantage, Inc. v.
MailMania.com, D2000-0288
a.
Date:
May 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David Perkins, Jeffrey Samuels, G. Gervaise Davis III
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <mailmania.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: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
CRS Technology Corporation v. Condenet Inc., FA #002000093547
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
528. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment
Inc. (WWFE) v. de Rooij, D2000-0290
a.
Date:
June 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David Perkins
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <wwfshop.com, iwwf.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Case involving competing marks. “The Panel finds
nothing in the Rules which precludes the Panel taking into account the
Third Party
Communication of May 26, 2000, on behalf of the Fund. Indeed, the Panel
has a broad discretion in the conduct of the administrative proceeding,
provided always that the parties are treated with equality and that each
party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.” (citing Rules para.
10)
“This Supplementary Response is not inadmissible for failure to reiterate
the Certification contained in the main Response. As a supplement to the
Response it is covered by the Certification in the Response.” (emphasis
in original). Distinguishes Talk City.
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 3(b), 10
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009; World Wrestling Federation Entertainment,
Inc. v. Bosman,
D99-0001; Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
529. One 2 One v. Styers, D2000-0293
a.
Date:
June 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Christopher Tootal
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <one2one3g.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: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
530. Puckett d/b/a Nature’s Window v. Miller,
D2000-0297
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Clark W. Lackert
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <natureswindow.com, paulpuckett.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Common law trademark provided protection under Policy.
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 and statutes cited: None
531. Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Keith,
D2000-0299
a.
Date:
June 9, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Frederick M. Abott
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <montyroberts.net>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): “Claims for trademark infringement that are not based
on federal registration may be brought on the basis of state common law
rights
. . . and cyberpiracy prevention does not require that a mark be registered
to enjoy protection.” The addition of a gTLD does not provide any
legally significant differentiation from a protected mark. Protected
free speech does not automatically allow one to usurp the mark of another.
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 8
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, D2000-0044; Jeanette
Winterson v. Mark Hogarth, D2000-0235;
Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd, D2000-021;
j.
Judicial decisions and statues cited: Lanham Act, section 43; See
Brookfield Comm. Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Group, 174 F. 3d
1036 (9th Cir. 1999); Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Bucci,
97 Civ. 0629, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, (S.D.N.Y. 1997),
aff’d mem. 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 90 (1998); Bally
Total Fitness v. Faber, 29 F.Supp. 2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1998);
Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc. 184 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir.
1999); Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282 (D.N.J. 1998);
I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 46 (1st Cir.1998); Avery
Dennison v. Sumpton, (9th Cir. 1999), 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS
19954; 15 USCS §1104; Century 21 Real Estate v. Billy Sandlin, 846
F.2d 1175 (9th Cir. 1988); Films of Distinction v. Allegro Film, 12 F.
Supp. 2d 1068C.D. Cal 1998); Georgetown Steel Corporation v. U.S., 801
F.2d 1308 (CAFC 1986); 15 USCS § 1057(c); Century 21 Real
Estate v. Billy Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175 (9th Cir. 1988); Films of Distinction
v. Allegro Film, 12 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (C.D. Cal 1998); 15 USCS
§ 1125; Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment,
174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999); Sporty's Farm v. Sportsman's Market,
202 F.3d 489, 498, (2d Cir. 2000)
532. Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Bartell,
D2000-0300
a.
Date:
June 13, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Frederick M. Abbott
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <montyroberts.org>
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:
Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, D2000-0044; Jeanette Winterson
v. Mark Hogarth, D20000235;
Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd, D2000-0210
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Planned Parenthood Fed’n of
Am. v. Bucci, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); Jews for
Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Supp. 282 (D.N.J. 1998); Bally Total Fitness v.
Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Georgetown Steel
Corp. v. U.S., 801 F.2d 1308 (CAFC 1986); 15 USCS § 1057(c); 15 USCS
§ 1104; Century 21 Real Estate v. Billy Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175
(9th Cir. 1988); Films of Distinction v. Allegro Film, 12 F. Supp. 2d 1068
(C.D. Cal. 1998); 15 USCS § 1125; 15 USCS § 1125(c); 15
USCS § 1125(d); Lanham Act; Avery Dennison v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d
868 (9th Cir. 1999); Brookfield Communications v. West Coast
Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999); Sporty’s Farm v. Sportsman’s
Market, 202 F.3d 489 (2nd Cir. 2000)
533. VeriSign Inc. v. VeneSign C.A.,
D2000-0303
a.
Date:
June 28, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Peter Chrocziel
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <venesign.com>
d.
Response?:
Not formally sufficient
e.
Principle(s): “Even with the bad faith element more likely than not
being present, the Panel has to acknowledge from the record, taking into
account the evidence produced by Complainant only that the fact remains
that the Respondent used its own company name, VeneSign C.A. in the
domain name <venesign.com>. “
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009; eAuto L.L.C. v. Eauto Parts,
D2000-0096
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
534. Lana Marks, Ltd. Inc. v. SYP Web, D2000-0304
a.
Date:
June 23, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Peter L. Michaelson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <lanamarks.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(a), 15 [additionally 4(c), 4(d) although
cited to as Policy, these may be referring to the Rules]
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Lanham Act
535. GA Modefine SA v. Armani International
Investment, D2000-0305
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Christian Le Stanc
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <armaniinternational.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i), 4(k)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 11(a), 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Paris Convention (art.6 bis)
536. GA Modefine S.A. v. AES Optics; D2000-0306
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Christian Le Stanc
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <armani-sunglasses.com>
d.
Response?:
Not Formally Sufficient
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 11(a), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Paris Convention (art.6 bis)
537. Solvay S.A. v. IMS Marketing Services,
D2000-0307
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Clive Duncan Thorne
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <solvay.net>
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), 3(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
538. Cho Young Pil v. Sinwoo Yoon, D2000-0310
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Young Kim
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <choyongpil.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Steven S. Lalwani, D2000-0014; Bennett
Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Long
Distance Telephone Company, D2000-0015; Telstra Corporation Limited
v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003; SeekAmerica
Networks Inc. v. Tariq Masood and Solo Signs, D2000-0131
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
539. Caterpillar Inc. v. Quinn, D2000-0314
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Ross Carson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <caterpillarparts.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: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
540. Royal Crown Co. Inc. v. New York Broadcast
Services, Inc., D2000-0315
a.
Date:
June 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
William L. Mathis
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <dietrite.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 and statutes cited: Panavision Intl., L.P. v.
Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 46 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1511 (9th Cir. 1998).
541. Millennium & Copthorne International
Ltd. v. McGovern, D2000-0318
a.
Date:
June 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Nick Gardner
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <millenniumhotels.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 5(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
542. Phoenix Technologies, Ltd. v. Phoenix Global
Networks, Inc. f/k/a Phoenix Technologies, Inc., D2000-0319
a.
Date:
June 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jeffrey M. Samuels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <phoenixtechnologies.com>
d.
Response?:
“Statement of No Opposition”
e.
Principle(s): After Respondent filed “Statement of No Opposition,” name
was transferred consistent with paragraph 8 of the Policy.
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 3, 8
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
543. BSA v. Hilding, D2000-0320
a.
Date:
June 13, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Geert Glas
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <president.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): “In view of the above, the Administrative Panel finds
that the Domain Name is identical to the trademark ‘Président’ of
the
Complainant. Indeed, with regard to the fact that the character "é"
cannot be a part of a domain name, the only possibility to reflect the
term
‘Président’ a domain name is by using the term ‘president’.”
“In the absence of any evidence that the Domain Name was registered and
has been
used in bad faith, it is not necessary for the Panel to consider whether
Respondent does have a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.”
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
544. Bondy Way Development Corp. and Ashburn
Village Development Corp. v. Re/Max Premier, D2000-0322
a.
Date:
June 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jordan S. Weinstein
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <lowesislandclub.com, lowesislandclub.org,
ashburnvillage.com>
d.
Response?:
Not formally sufficient
e.
Principle(s): Procedural case involving an agent and a transfer of
power regarding control of the domain.
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Bossman, D99-0001;
Ellenbogen v. Pearson,
D00-0001
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(f);
Sunbeam Products Inc. v. The West Bend Co., 123 F.3d 246, 44 USPQ2d
1161, 1167 (5th Cir. 1997).
545. Neuberger Berman, Inc.
v. Jacobsen, D2000-0323
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Dennis A. Foster
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <newbergerberman.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
546. Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Shan
Computers, D2000-0325
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Andrew F. Christie
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <toshiba.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), 14(b), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
547. Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jeffrey P. Kushan
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <geociites.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): Typo-piracy case.
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
548. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Zuccarini
and The Cupcake Patrol a/k/a Country Walk a/k/a Cupcake Party, D2000-0330
a.
Date:
June 7, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jeffrey M. Samuels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <encyclopediabrittanica.com, brtanica.com,
bitannica.com, britannca.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): “While a finding of "bad faith" intent pursuant to the "Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act" does not compel a determination
that a domain name was registered and used in "bad faith" pursuant to paragraph
4. B. of the Policy, given that the relevant factors under the Act
and Policy, to some extent, differ, such a finding is entitled to substantial
weight”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Adobe Systems Inc. v. Domain OZ, D2000-0057;
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Shields v. Zuccarini, 2000
U.S. Dist. Lexis 3350 (March 22, 2000); ACPA
549. Walter Lantz Productions, Inc. v. Thomsen,
D2000-0334
a.
Date:
June 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard W. Page
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <woodywoodpecker.net>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
J. Crew International, Inc. v. crew.com, WIPO D2000-0054
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
550. American Institute of Floral
Designers v. Palm Coast Floral, Inc., D2000-0335
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
M. Scott Donahey
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <aifd.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Preventing a panel from consulting information outside of
the pleadings may lead to an unjust result (distinguishing from Dissent
in
Chernow Communications).
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:
Ronson plc v. Unimetal Sanayai ve Tic.A.S., Retail Florist's Business,
D2000-0011; Parfums Christian Dior
v. QTR Corporation, D2000-0023; Ingersoll-Rand v. Frank Gully, d/b/a Advcomren,
D2000-0021; Chernow Communications, Inc. v.
Jonathan D. Kimball, D2000-0119
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
551. Cyro Industries v. Contemporary Design,
D2000-0336
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Dana Haviland
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <acrylite.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): Complainant held to “an exacting standard” when respondent
defaults (citing Burroughs).
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Barney’s Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, ICANN Case No. D2000-0059; Edgar Rice
Burroughs, Inc. v. Adtel
Communications, D2000-0115; World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman; D99-0001;
Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear
Marshmallows, D2000-003; Barney’s, Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, D2000-0059
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
552. Casillas v. Maverick Group, Inc., D2000-0340
a.
Date:
June 11, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Frederick M. Abbott
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <casillascigars.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Heel Quik!, Inc. v. Goldman, NAF 92527; World Wrestling Federation Entertainment,
Inc. v. Bosman,
D99-0001; America Online, Inc. v. QTR Corp., FA0001000092016; Stella D’Oro
Biscuit Co. Inc., v. The Patron Group, Inc., D00-012;
Mary-Lynn Mondich, American Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Shane Brown,
D00-0004; Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson, Case No.
00-0001; FaceTime Communications v. Live Person, Inc., Forum File No. FA0001000092048;
Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL,
D2000-0044
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Thomas v. Dillard Dep’t Stores
Inc., 116 F.3d 1432, 1437 (11th Cir. 1997) ; Ingersoll v. Kriseman,
124 B.R. 116, 121 (M.D. Fla. 1991); Da Costa v. Public Employees Relations
Comm’n, 443 So.2d 1036, 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983);
Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment, 174 F.3d 1036, 1047,
n. 8, (9th Cir. 1999); 15 USCS § 1125; 15 USCS § 1057.
553. Loblaws Inc. v. Technology Education Center
and Qureshi, AF-0165
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David Marcel Robinson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <realcanadiansuperstore.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: 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
554. Loblaws, Inc. v. Barbosa, AF-0163
a.
Date:
June 23, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Natasha C. Lisman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <canadiansuperstore.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): “Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Panelist rejects the
literal interpretation of ICANN Policy and Rules because, by punishing
complainants for failing to proffer evidence that is unavailable to them
and creating an incentive to respondents, particularly those without meritorious
defenses, to gain tactical advantage by evading their obligation to respond,
it is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of ICANN Policy to create
an
efficient and fair dispute resolution procedure. An alternative interpretation,
is to distinguish between the burden of proof in the sense of the burden
of persuasion and the burden of production and allow for the shifting of
the latter. Under this approach, once a complainant produces sufficient
evidence that the contested domain name is identical or confusingly similar
to the complainant's trademark or service mark, the burden of production
should shift to the respondent to introduce evidence demonstrating its
rights to and legitimate interest in the domain name, as well as its good
faith in
registering and using it. If the respondent meets this burden of production,
then the burden shifts back to the complainant to rebut the respondent's
evidence. If, on the other hand, the respondent either submits no response
or its response presents insufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of
production, a finding of the absence of right, or legitimate interest,
or good faith on the part of the respondent becomes compelled as a matter
of
law, rather than merely permitted as an inference. Placing the burden of
production on elements two and three on respondents is fully consistent
with
ICANN Rule 5(i), which requires a respondent to submit affirmative evidence
and not merely deny complainant's allegations. ”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 3(c), 4(a), 5(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5, 12, 14(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Eauto v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/v/a King Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc., No.
D2000-00047; Royal Bank of Canada
v. Xcross, AF-0133
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)
555. Qtrade Canada Inc. v. Bank of Hydro,
AF-0169
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Mark A. A. Warner
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <qtrade.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Applies Shiramx and Loblaws to determine standard for
reverse domain name hijacking/bad faith filing of complaint.
f.
Result: Complainant charged with abuse of administrative proceedings
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 10(c), 15(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Shirmax Retail Ltd. v. CES Marketing Group, Inc., AF-0104; Mpower Communications
Corp. v. Park Lodge
Hotel, D2000-0078; Breakthrough Software, Inc. v. Hendrick Huigen d/b/a
Gordon-Huigen Enterprises, AF-0122; Loblaws, Inc. v
Presidentchoice.Inc/Presidentchoice.com, AF-0170(a) (b) (c)
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
556. Glenmaura v. American Distribution
Systems, Inc., AF-0144(a) (b)
a.
Date:
June 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Giovanni Ziccardi
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <glenmaura.com, glenmauranational.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 3(c), 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
557. Christus Rex, Inc. v. Karr, AF-0188
a.
Date:
June 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Ariane Siegel
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <christusrex.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): Discussion of the importance of whether a web page
is active or inactive at the time a complaint is filed, and the provider’s
responsibilities in that regard. Information on the web page taken
to prove that actual notice had been provided to the respondent.
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 3(b), 5(b), 14
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
558. Radiomutuel, Inc. v. Mercure,
AF-0208
a.
Date:
June 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Bruno Gregoire Sainte Marie
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <radio-energie.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s): Although the language of the Registrar is English,
the decision was filed in French since the Complaint and Response were
filed in
French.
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 11(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
559. W3 Internet Solutions SARL v. Clark,
AF-0186
a.
Date:
June 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Merton Thompson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <dinabase.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: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
560.
Drakken Ltd. v. Noname.com and Ye Yun, AF-0190
a.
Date:
July 2, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David Marcel Robinson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <oscarnet.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 3(b), 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
561.
Huangshan Tourism Development Co., Ltd v. NA Global Link Ltd., AF-0202
a.
Date:
July 3, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Li Yong
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <huangshan.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Company name was registered in Chinese characters form (instead
of Pin Yin or in English characters), thus the domain name is not
identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
562. Nuhad Khoury Cosmetics & Perfumery,
Inc. v. Hindawi, AF-00215 (conflicts with nitrofuel.com case) [noted as
AF-0212 in index]
a.
Date:
June 29, 2000
b.
Panelist(s): David G. Allsebrook
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <tiba.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
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 and statutes cited: None
563. Save a Life v. Hyde Engineering Group,
Inc., AF-0200
a.
Date:
June 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Diane Cabell
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <resqdisc.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes, one day late, but accepted by Panelist
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 10(c)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: McCarthy on Trademarks and
Unfair Competition
564. Wagg, Inc. v. 1070903 Ontario Ltd.,
AF-0205
a.
Date:
July 3, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Christiane Feral-Schuhl
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <whiskeyagogo.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
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 and statutes cited: None
565. Can-Best Building Sciences Corp. v.
Scopp d/b/a Canada’s Best, AF-0213
a.
Date:
June 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jean-Francois Buffoni
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <canbest.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Apparent sua sponte examination for potential Reverse Domain
Name Hijacking/harrassment
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 1, 15(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
566. Sean Michaels Inc. v. Mark Allan Online
Entertainment, AF-0214
a.
Date:
July 2, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Riccardo Roversi
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <seanmichaels.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
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:
Jeanette Winterson v. Mark Hogarth, D2000-0235; Cho Yong Pil v. ImageLand
Inc., D2000-0229; Julia
Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd, D2000-0210; Harrods Limited v. Robert Boyd,
D2000-0060; Spincycle Inc. v. Spin Cycle (eResolution), AF
- 00176
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
567. Clark Pest Control of Stockton, Inc.
v. Rogers, AF-0126 (a), (b), (c)
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Sarah Rudolph Cole
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <clarkpestcontrol.com, clarkpestcontrol.org,
clarkpestcontrol.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Cancellation
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5(e), 14
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Spincycle Inc. v. Spin Cycle, AF-0176; Softquad Software, Inc. v. Eleven-Eleven
Ltd, AF-0143; Carpenter
Jr. Walter v. Clement, J.D., AF-0148
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
568. Smoky Mountain Knife Works v. Carpenter,
AF-230 (a), (b)
a.
Date:
July 3, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jonathan S. Bain
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <www.smokeymountainknife.net, www.smokymountainknives.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Dicta: “As a matter of policy, this Panel believes
that, since the Policy, like the ACPA, is intended to reach a limited class
of
abusive domain registrations, including those where the respondent simply
‘parks’ a domain without using it in commerce, it would be inappropriate
to
require complainants to make a full showing of likelihood of confusion.”
Dicta: “[T]his is not a case where a domain registrant chooses a domain
name that is confusingly similar to a registered trademark so as to provide
political commentary, satire, or other fair-use communications associated
with the owner of such trademark13
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 3(c), 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Phillip S. Martin, d/b/a Blue Ridge Knives v. Deon Carpenter, NAF-FA0002000094311
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: ACPA; Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad
Elecs. Corp, 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S.
820 (1961)