THE ICANN CYBERSQUATTING DECISIONS
December 16, 2000 through January 15, 2001
© 2001
M. Scott Donahey
Tomlinson Zisko Morosoli
& Maser LLP
200 Page Mill Rd.
Second Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel.: (650) 325-8666
Fax.: (650) 324-1808
email: msd@tzmm.com
web site: www.tzmm.com
Christine Watson
Santa Clara University
School of Law
Santa Clara, California
Tel.: (650) 941-5323
Fax: (408) 554-4191
Email: Christine.Watson@jhu.edu
Julia Wei
Santa Clara University
School of Law
Santa Clara, California
Tel.: (650) 616-6835
Fax: (650) 616-6510
Email: jmwei@scu.edu
MIL2087.doc
Mr. Donahey is a member of the panel of neutrals of the World Intellectual Property
Organization, eResolution, and the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution, three of the four
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 numerous cases, including The World Wrestling Federation
v. Bosman, D99-0001, the first case to be heard under the UDRP.
Christine Watson is a J.D./M.B.A. candidate (2001) at the Santa Clara University School of Law
and Leavey School of Business, where she is pursuing the High Tech Law Certificate. Ms.
Watson is the Senior Production Editor of the SCU Computer and High Technology Law
Journal. She is a member of the SCU Intellectual Property Association, International Law
Association, and Start-up Law Group.
Julia Wei is a third-year law student at Santa Clara University School of Law, and is as an editor
for their Computer and High Technology Journal. She completed her undergraduate education
at the University of California at Berkeley, where she received a B.A. in 1995 with a major in
Asian Studies. Prior to attending law school, Ms. Wei worked at Oracle Corporation based in
Redwood Shores. Currently, she divides her time between her studies and the legal department
at Epinions, Inc. Epinions.com is a Web site for trusted consumer advice, ratings, and reviews
offering more than one million consumer reviews and comments, covering over 200,000
products and services.
MIL2087.doc
It has now been more than a year since the first decision was handed down under
the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ( the "UDRP"). The Policy and
procedures have gained general acceptance, as the more than 2000 decisions which have
been issued and the almost 600 cases pending attest. The UDRP has been hailed for its
speed and its cost effectiveness. While much of the criticism of the UDRP has actually
been directed at ICANN, there are several areas concerning which the need for
improvement has been noted.
The ability of the complainant to select the provider has been linked in the minds
of some critics with the predominance of decisions favoring the complainant, (The
complainant currently prevails in 85% of the cases. That percentage includes those cases
in which the respondent fails to appear and defend. In this month’s digest, there was no
response filed in 66% of the cases.)
The lack of predictability in the process has been repeatedly noted. There exists
no appellate procedure which would provide precedent and reconcile conflicting panel
decisions. The inconsistency in results may, in part, be due to the lack of a searchable
data base. Neither Westlaw, nor Lloyds, nor Lexis has seen fit to establish the kind of
searchable data base that exists for judicial decisions.
The conflicting decisions may also be due in part to the size of the fees paid to
panelists. Conscientious panel members’ time is compensated at only a small fraction of
what the panelists would receive if their time were billed at their regular hourly rates.
The UDRP has had the benefit of some of the finest law professors, trademark lawyers,
and commercial arbitrators in the world on a virtual pro bono publico basis.
1
MIL2087.doc
Nevertheless, it is this effort and pride which many members of the Panel take in
creating a private system of justice with a public profile that is largely responsible for the
public acceptance of the UDRP. Even those panelists who are the foremost critics of
ICANN and the UDRP give generously of their time in trying to reach what they believe
to be the right result in a given case. I am continuously amazed at the commitment of
time, energy, intellect, and emotion that my fellow panelists willingly devote to the
process.
Since it has been more than a year since the first decision, I felt it would be
appropriate and also of assistance to the panelists to solicit the readers’ views on the
Panel decisions that the readers feel are the most significant and those that reflect both
the rule and the spirit of the UDRP. I am inviting all readers to email me with the three
decisions they feel advance the intent of the UDRP and two or three sentences as to why
the readers selected the particular decisions. You may email me at msd@tzmm.com. I
very much look forward to hearing from you and in reporting on your selections in the
next issue of the digest. This has the added benefit of bringing to the panelists' attention
decisions of which they might not be aware.
This month I want to compare two cases which decide very similar fact patterns
differently. Both decisions cast a new light on what is meant when one says a domain
name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights. Is
<casionomonaco.net> or <casino-monaco.com> confusingly similar to CASINO DE
MONTE-CARLO? Yes, both panels agreed. In one case the Complainant prevailed, in
the other the Respondent did.
2
MIL2087.doc
In Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco v. Javier
Llorens, ICANN Case No. D2000-1319, the domain name at issue was
<casinomonaco.net>. Complainant holds the monopoly for casino and gaming in the
Principality of Monaco and is the owner of the trademark, "Casino de Monte-Carlo."
Complainant argued that the domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant’s
mark since the terms "Monte Carlo" and "Monaco" were used interchangeably. Since
Complainant had a monopoly on gaming in Monaco, Complainant argued that
Respondent used the domain name at issue, which linked to an online gambling site, to
attract for financial gain, Internet users to the web site, by creating a likelihood of
confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web
site.
Respondent argued that there is a distinction between Monaco and Monte Carlo:
the former is a principality and the latter is a city.
Respondent also argued that the term
"casino," being a generic term, should not be considered when determining the main
elements of Complainant’s mark.
The Panel was of the opinion that "the substitution of the term of the trademark
‘Monte-Carlo’ by the term ‘Monaco’ in the Domain Name ‘casinomonaco.net’, does not
suppress this strong similarity between the two terms, as it is very common to use one or
the other term indifferently to designate the Principaute and thus, are synonyms." "The
Panel, applying its judicial knowledge, is of the opinion that even though Monaco is the
Principaute and Monte-Carlo is the city within this Principaute, these terms are used
interchangeably by the public at large. The words (‘monaco’ and ‘casino’) used together
create a strong similarity and impression that could easily induce the general public into
3
MIL2087.doc
believing that the Domain Name, the Domain Name proprietor, and any web site
operated from the Domain Name are associated with the Complainant."
The Panel went on to find that Respondent had failed to establish any rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Finally, the Panel found that the
Respondent attempted to appropriate the good will of the Complainant and to confuse
Internet users and to redirect traffic intended for Respondent to Complainant’s site.
Accordingly, the Panel found for the Complainant and ordered the domain name at issue
transferred to the Complainant.
In La Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco v. Martimi
Bt., ICANN Case No. D2000-1318, the domain name <casino-monaco.com> was at
issue. The facts regarding Complainant’s interest in the trademark and its monopoly
were identical to the previous case. In this case, however, the Respondent had registered
several domain names combining the word "casino" and the name of a country,
connected by a hyphen, and attached to a generic Top Level Domain (gTLD).
The Panelist found that "it cannot be excluded that a conceptual similarity would
be deemed to exist between the domain name and the trademark." The Panelist however
found that there was no proof of bad faith registration and use. "Respondent proceeded
to register a considerable number of domain names, by combining the word ‘casino’ with
the name of a country. The Panel finds that this pattern of conduct in registering the
domain names shows that Respondent registered the Domain Name independently of
Complainant’s trademark. In fact there is no evidence that Respondent [an Hungarian]
knew of Complainant, of Complainant’s trademark or of Complainant’s exclusive rights
4
MIL2087.doc
on providing gambling services in the Princedom of Monaco." The Panel therefore found
for the Respondent.
The following are the digested cases:
1705.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Shop TV, Inc. v. Mind Ta2, Inc., No. FA0011000096124
Date: December 15, 2000
Panelist(s):
Robert R. Merhige, Jr.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<shoptv.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s): None
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
Vertical Solutions Management, Inc. v. WebNetMarketing, Inc., Case No. FA 95095; NetLearning, Inc. v. Dan Parisi, Case No.
FA 95471; Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc., Case No. D2000-0039;
M&T Quality Restaurant Supply v. Your Name Here, Case No. FA 95416.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1706.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Palace Sports & Entertainment v. Crystal Whitaker, No. FA0011000096013
Date: December 20, 2000
Panelist(s):
Ralph Yachnin
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<thepalaceofauburnhills.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “Respondent’s failure to show evidence sufficient to refute Complainant’s
allegations, entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or
legitimate interests in regard to the domain name at issue.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(b)(i), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra Inc., Case
No. D2000-0165; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality
Inc. and D3M Domain Sales, Case No. AF-0336; Dynojet Research, Inc. v.
Norman, Case No. AF-0316; Cream Pie Club v. Brittany Halford, Case No. FA
95235.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1707. J-B Weld Company v. Ed Justice Jr. d/b/a Justice Brothers,
No. FA0011000095962
a. Date: December 15, 2000
b. Panelist(s):
James P. Buchele
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<jbweld.org, jbweld.com>
5
MIL2087.doc
d. Response?:
e. Principle(s):
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
No
1) Merely removing a hyphen from Complainant’s mark to form
Respondent’s domain name does not preclude a finding of
identity or confusing similarity.
2) “Respondent’s failure to show evidence sufficient to refute
Complainant’s assertions entitles the Panel to conclude that
Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in regard to
the domain names in question.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. v. Club Car Executive
Transportation and Dennis Rooney, Case No. D2000-0611; Woolworth’s plc. v.
David Anderson, Case No. D2000-1113; Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,
Case No. D2000-0441; Perot Systems Corporation v. Perot.net, Case No. FA
95312; Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, Case No. D2000-0911; EthnicGrocer.com,
Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., Case No. FA 94385.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1708. Sand Hill Wholesale of Ohio v. Chris Hatton d/b/a Sand Hill Wholesale
Cedar Lod Furniture, No. FA0011000095970
a. Date: December 18, 2000
b. Panelist(s):
James A. Carmody
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<sandhillwholesale.com, sandhillwholesale.net>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) “Unregistered marks are protected by statutory and common law
principles in the same manner as registered marks. The
subsequent registration of a long-used, but unregistered mark,
does not affect the long-standing rights acquired by that
unregistered mark under statutory and common law principles.”
2) “Upon its registration on February 9, 2000, through March 2,
2000, and at least up until March 14, 2000, Respondent listed
both the disputed domain names as being “Domain For Sale.”
This indicates that the Respondent registered and used the
domain name for the purpose of reselling it.”
f. Result:
Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(b)(i), 4(c), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
h. Uniform Rules cited:
None
i. Panel Decisions cited:
William Hill Organisation Limited v. Seven Oaks
Motoring Centre, Case No. D2000-0824; Barney’s, Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board,
Case No. D2000-0059; Microsoft Corp. v. Amit Mehrotra, Case No. D2000-0053.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
6
MIL2087.doc
1709.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1710.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1711.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Calvin Klein, Inc. v. AMG, No. FA0011000095963
Date: December 14, 2000
Panelist(s):
Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<calvinklein-on-line.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
1) “Making demonstrable preparations to use the website before any notice
of a dispute is evidence of rights and legitimate interests in the domain
name.”
2) Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name in order to prevent
trademark or service mark owners from reflecting their marks in
corresponding domain names is registration and use in bad faith.
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, Case No.
D2000-0403; Casual Corner Group, Inc. v. Young, Case No. FA 95112; Hitachi,
Ltd. v. Fortune Int’l Dev. Ent., Case No. D2000-0412; Harcourt, Inc. v. Jeff
Fadness, Case No. FA 95247; Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., Case No.
D2000-0471; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, Case No. FA 93761.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
Compassion in Action v. Donald McDermott, No. FA0011000095952
Date: December 18, 2000
Panelist(s):
P. Jay Hines
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<compassioninaction.org,
compassioninaction.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
1) “Respondent’s use of the name…prior to any notice of the dispute with
Complainant indicates that Respondent did not acquire the domain name
primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain
name registration to the Complainant.”
Result:
Decision for Respondent
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(i), 4(c)(i)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Industrial Sales, Corp., Case No. FA0010000095856
Date: December 18, 2000
Panelist(s):
Peter L. Michaelson
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<treeforms.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
7
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1) “The sole difference between the contested domain name and the
registered…mark is simply the inclusion of a generic top-level domain
(.com) in the former. This difference is so de minimus as to be inadequate
to preclude any confusion from occurring.”
2) “[T]he Panel believes that where allegations of illegitimacy are made,
particularly as here, when coupled with conduct of respondents that
evidences bad faith, it is quite reasonable to shift the burden of proof to
each such respondent to adequately show that its use of the contested
domain name is legitimate, such as by showing that, in conjunction with
the contested domain name, it is making a bona fide commercial offering
of goods or services or preparation for such offerings, or non-commercial
or fair use.”
3) “Registration of a domain name coupled with subsequent retention of that
name by a competitor without any use of that name over an extended
period of time can evince bad faith registration.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(c)(i)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, Case No. D20001204; ViewSonic Corporation v. Informer Associates, Inc., Case No. D2000-0852;
Lana Marks, Ltd., Inc. v. SYP Web, Case No. D2000-0304; The Pep Boys Manny,
Moe and Jack of California v. E-Commerce Today, Ltd., Case No. AF-0145;
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Hector Rodriguez, Case No. D20001016; Casual Corner Group Inc. v. Neil Young, Case No. FA 95112; Compare
Mondich et al v. Broan d/b/a Big Daddy’s Antiques, Case No. D2000-0004;
Sanrio Company, Ltd. and Sanrio Inc. v. DLI, Case No. D2000-0159.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(1),
§1125(d)(1)(B)(i), §1125(d)(1)(B)(ii); Centaur Communications, Limited v.
A/S/M Communications, Inc., 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1541(CA2 1987); Lois Sportswear,
U.S.A., Inc. et al v. Levi Strauss & Co., 230 U.S.P.Q. 831 (CA2 1986); Scarves by
Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports Ltd. (Inc.), 192 U.S.P.Q. 289 (CA2 1976); Polaroid
Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 128 U.S.P.Q. 411 (CA2 1961).
1712.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Out2.com, Inc. v. Rustom Corporation, No. FA0010000095896
Date: December 20, 2000
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<out2travel.com, out2themovies.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “The addition of generic words to a mark does not create a distinct new
domain name and the domain names at issue are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark because they consist of Complainant’s mark plus
generic words.”
2) Engaging in a pattern of registering others’ trademarks for the purpose of
financial gain is evidence of bad faith.
f. Result:
Name transfer
8
MIL2087.doc
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
h. Uniform Rules cited:
None
i. Panel Decisions cited:
Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, Case No. AF
0298; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, Case No. D2000-0150; The
Boeing Company v. Nicola Bressi, Case No. D2000-1164; Armstrong Holdings,
Inc. v. JAZ Associates, Case No. FA 95234.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1713. TeachMeNow Inc. v. General Physics Corporation, No. FA0011000095909
a. Date: December 15, 2000
b. Panelist(s):
Paul A. Dorf
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<showmenow.com, teachmenow.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) “As Complainant held no trademarks reflecting the domain names at the time
of their registration, the Complainant has not been deprived of its right to reflect
that mark in a domain name.”
f. Result:
Decision for Respondent
g. Policy cited: 4(a)
h. Uniform Rules cited:
None
i. Panel Decisions cited:
DFJ Associates, Inc. v. AIB Communications, Case
No. FA 95612; Loris Azzaro BV, SARL v. Asterix and Mr. De Vasconcellos, Case
No. D2000-0608.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1714.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Monarch Import Company v. Jinlong Xu, No. FA0010000095773
Date: December 14, 2000
Panelist(s):
Harold Kalina
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<tsingtaobeer.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “Several UDRP decisions have instructed that for the purposes of
considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar, a
TLD or space between words may be ignored.”
2) Registering and passively holding a domain name may be evidence of bad
faith.
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, Case No. FA
95288; Geocities v. Geociites.com, Case No. D2000-0326; CBS Broadcasting,
Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, Case No. D2000-0397; Household International, Inc. v.
Cyntom Enterprises, Case No. FA 95784; Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen
and Sallen Enterprises, Case No. D2000-0715.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
9
MIL2087.doc
1715.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1716.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1717.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
AltaVista Company v. Jan Looymans, No. FA0010000095895
Date: December 16, 2000
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<altavistaq.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “Under the UDRP, the Respondent has the burden to prove that it has rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(c)(i), 4(c)(ii)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens,
Case No. D2000-0716; CCA Industries, Inc. v. Bobby R. Dailey, Case No. D20000148; Bama Rags, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Case No. FA 94381.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
Ford’s Fancy Fruits, Inc. v. Gulf South Limited, No. FA0010000095898
Date: December 14, 2000
Panelist(s):
Harold Kalina
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<fordsfancyfruits.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “ICANN Policy §4.b. lists circumstances of bad faith registration and use
in particular, but without limitation. Therefore, UDRP Panels have
flexibility in finding bad faith upon other circumstances.”
2) “Use of the Complainant’s family and business name by any other person
would suggest purposeful registration to infringe upon the Complainant’s
marks.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(iii), 4(b), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited:
15(a)
Panel Decisions cited:
Luck’s Music Library v. Stellar Artist Management,
Case No. FA 95650; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual
Reality Inc. and D3M Domain Sales, Case No. AF-0336; CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
v. LA-Twilight-Zone, Case No. D2000-0397; Educational Testing Service v.
TOEFL, Case No. D2000-0044; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser,
Case No. FA 93761; America Online Inc. v. Shenzhen JZT Computer Software
Co. Ltd., Case No. D2000-0809.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
ESPN, Inc. v. Adventure Enterprises, No. FA0011000095910
Date: December 13, 2000
Panelist(s):
Herman D. Michels
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<espninteractive.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s): None
10
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
Result:
Name cancellation
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(iv), 4(b)(v), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
Computer Doctor Franchise Systems, Inc. v. The
Computer Doctor, Case No. FA 95396; Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., Case
No. D2000-0471; State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, Case No. FA 95288;
Perot Systems Corporation v. Perot.net, Case No. FA 95312.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1718.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The AgZone, Inc. v. Cody Heer, No. FA0010000095905
Date: December 15, 2000
Panelist(s):
Harold Kalina
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<agzone.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
1) Respondent’s continuing efforts to carry out his future business plans for the
site and continuing negotiations to obtain software is a good indication that he is
legitimately using the site.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
IG Index PLC v. Index Trade, Case No. D20001124.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1719. ABC Sports Inc. v. Universal Internet Technologies, Inc.,
No. FA 0010000095840
a. Date: December 13, 2000
b. Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<abcsportswager.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) “Using an infringing domain name to trade upon another’s mark is not
evidence of a bona fide commercial or noncommercial use of a domain name.”
f. Result:
Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(a)(iii), 4(b)(ii), 4(b)(iv), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
h. Uniform Rules cited:
None
i. Panel Decisions cited:
Yahoo! Inc. v. and GeoCities v. Cupcakes, Cupcake
city, Cupcake Confidential, Cupcake-Party, Cupcake Parade, and John
Zuccarini, Case No. D2000-0777; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company v. Douglas LaFaive, Case no. FA 95407; Nabisco Brands Co. v. The
Patron Group, Case No. D2000-0032; Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v.
Shedon.com, Case No. D2000-0753.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
11
MIL2087.doc
1720.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1721.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Gillette Company v. S.A. Inc., No. FA0010000095892
Date: December 18, 2000
Panelist(s):
Paul A. Dorf
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<foamy.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
1) “Given the Respondent’s history of domain name registrations, a reasonable
person could conclude that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s mark
prior to the registration of the domain name.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
Chi-Chi’s Inc. v. Restaurant Commentary, Case No.
D2000-0321; Deutsche Bank AG v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner, Case No. D20000277.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
Philip Ronald Loria M.D. v. Everett Mays, No. FA0010000095848
Date: December 12, 2000
Panelist(s):
Louis E. Condon
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<laserminipeel.com, laserminipeel.org>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
1) “Common law rights in the mark can be shown by proving that the mark
has sufficient secondary registration with the Complainant.”
2) “Registering a domain name for the purpose of reselling it for valuable
consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith.”
The offer to sell the domain name here does not have to be an express
offer at a set price, but rather can be a general offer for sale.”
3) “[R]egistering a domain name to prevent the owner of a trademark or
service mark from reflecting the mark in a domain is evidence of bad faith
registration and use if there is a pattern of conduct.”
4) “Registering a domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the
business of a competitor is evidence of bad faith registration and use.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(i)-(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
Roberts v. Boyd, Case No. D2000-0210; Vartec
Telecom, Inc. v. Jim Olenbush, Case No. D2000-1092; Educational Testing
Services v. TOEFL, Case No. D2000-0044; General Electric Co. v.
Forddirect.com, Inc., Case No. D2000-0394; The Pep Boys Manny, Moe and Jack
v. E-Commerce Today, Ltd., Case No. AF-0145; Southern Exposure v. Southern
Exposure, Inc., Case No. FA 94864.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
12
MIL2087.doc
1722.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1723.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Le Groupe Videotron, Ltée. v. Mr. Alexander Savelyev, No. AF-0451
Date: November 13, 2000
Panelist(s):
David Lametti
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<videotron.tv>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “A strong trademark, where unique because of its coined origins or well known
or longstanding reputation and accumulated goodwill, might effectively preclude
any legitimate or good faith registration or use.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b), 4(b)(i), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited:
14(b), 15
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
Foresight Corporation v. Michael Servos, Case No. AF-0473
Date: December 15, 2000
Panelist(s):
Sandra A. Sellers, Michelle Brownlee, Sarah Cole
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<tradesite.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
5) “’[B]ad faith should be found if the complainant has an obvious interest in
obtaining the respondent’s domain name for its own use, yet lacks even a
plausible argument on each of the elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of
the ICANN Policy’.”
6) “’[B]ad faith [can] be found where a complainant pursued a complaint that
it knew to be unsupportable, or filed a complaint with reckless disregard
as to whether its allegations are supportable’.”
Result:
Decision for Respondent
Policy cited: 4(a)
Uniform Rules cited:
15(e)
Panel decisions cited:
qtrade, Case No. AF-0169; thyme.com, Case No.
AF-0104; smartdesign.com, Case No. D2000-093.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1724.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Phoenix Gold International, Inc. v. Stephen Noton, No. FA0011000095965
Date: December 26, 2000
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<pheonixgold.com, pheonixgoldcorp.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “[R]espondent’s failure to show evidence sufficient to rebut Complainant’s
allegations, entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or
legitimate interests in regard to the domain names in question.”
f. Result:
Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
13
MIL2087.doc
h. Uniform Rules cited:
None
i. Panel Decisions cited:
Bank of American Corp. v. InterMos, Case No. FA
95092; Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source, Case No. D2000-0362;
Woolworths plc. v. David Anderson, Case No. D2000-1113; Busy Body, Inc. v.
Fitness Outlet, Inc., Case No. D2000-0127; Luck’s Music Library v. Stellar Artist
Management, Case No. FA 95650; Kraft Foots (Norway) v. Wide, Case No.
D2000-0911.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1725.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Hollywood Network, Inc. v. Video Citizen Network, No. FA0010000095897
Date: December 20, 2000
Panelist(s):
James A. Carmody
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<hollywoodnetwork.tv>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s): None
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1726.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Kinko’s Ventures, Inc. v. MIC, No. FA0011000095961
Date: December 26, 2000
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<kinkoaol.com, aolkinko.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “The circumstances of bad faith listed under Policy ¶4.b. are listed in
particular, but without limitation. UDRP Panels have held other
circumstances of bad faith can warrant transfer of a domain name.”
2) “When there is no legitimate explanation for Respondent’s conduct, and
any future use of the domain names would further injure Complainant, a
finding of registration and use in bad faith is justified.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
America Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik
Danismanlik, Ltd., Case No. FA 93679; CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. LA-TwilightZone, Case No. D2000-0397; America Online, Inc. v. Shenzhen JZT Computer
Software Co. Ltd., Case No. D2000-0809; Hewlett-Packard Company v. Greg
Martineau, Case No. FA 95359.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1727. Cass Information Systems v. S. Anthony Sizemore, No. FA0011000095908
a. Date: December 22, 2000
b. Panelist(s):
Richard DiSalle
14
MIL2087.doc
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<ratemaker.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) “Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of no rights in the domain
name and bad faith registration and use.”
f. Result:
Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 2, 4(a), 4(b)(i), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited:
None
i. Panel Decisions cited:
Hormel Foods Corp. and Hormel Foods, LLC v.
Spotted Cow Media, Case No. FA 95067; Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises,
Inc., Case No. D2000-0039; Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No.
2000-0003; The Avenue, Inc. & United Retail Inc. v. Guirguis, Case No. D20000013; Southern Co. v. Doms, Case No. D2000-0184; Cruzeiro Licenciamentos
Ltda v. Sallen and Sallen Enterprises, Case No. D2000-0715.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1728.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Fox Group Legal v. Saeid Yomtobian, No. FA0010000095839
Date: December 18, 2000
Panelist(s):
Harold Kalina, Nelson A. Diaz, James A. Carmody
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<foxchannel.com, alienmovies.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s): None
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1729.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
SurfControl plc v. Multiview Solutions, No. AF-0513
Date: December 21, 2000
Panelist(s):
Jacques A. Léger
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<multiview.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
1) “[C]omplainant needs not to prove rights in a registered trademark, as the
Policy does not require that the Complainant must have rights to a ‘registered’
trademark. However, in the absence of a registration, the Complainant has to be
able to satisfy the Panel that it has sufficient rights which would give rise to an
action for passing off.”
Result:
Decision for Respondent
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited:
15(a)
Panel Decisions cited:
Jeanette Winterson v. Mark Hogarth, Case No.
D2000-0235.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
15
MIL2087.doc
1730.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1731.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Parker Hannifin Corporation v. East Bay Website Company, No. AF-0587
Date: December 22, 2000
Panelist(s):
Houston Putnam Lowry
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<parkerorings.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “A nominal respondent will not shield a real party in interest from the
jurisdiction of a panel under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.”
2) “Registering multiple domain names incorporating a trademark has been
held to be evidence of bad faith. Registering multiple domain names to
prevent a trademark holder from using a trademark is per se bad faith.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(b), 4(b)(ii), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
12
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
Halsey v. Brotherhood (1881), 19
Ch. D. 386 Lord Coleridge L.C.J.
Eva Airways Corporation v. Gary Chiang, No. AF-0588
Date: December 26, 2000
Panelist(s):
Jonathan Weinberg
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<evaair.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s): None
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(iv), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1732.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. BingZeng, No. FA0012000096205
Date: December 21, 2000
Panelist(s):
Roger P. Kerans
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<monymart.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s): None
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., Case No.
D2000-441.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1733. Hewlett-Packard Company v. HPB2B.com, No. FA0012000096203
a. Date: December 30, 2000
b. Panelist(s):
Ralph Yachnin
16
MIL2087.doc
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<hpb2b.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s):
1) “In failing to respond, the Respondent also failed to show that he is
commonly known by the domain name. Further, in neglecting to respond,
the Respondent has failed to show that the domain name is being used in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a
legitimate noncommercial purpose.”
2) “Offering a domain name for sale is a legitimate business purpose.
However, offering to sell a domain name that infringes upon another’s
trademark for an exorbitant price is prohibited and does not constitute a
legitimate business interest under Policy paragraph 4.c.(i).”
3) “Respondent is offering the domain name for sale at an auction site. Man
previous UDRP decisions have held that this demonstrates bad faith
registration and use under Policy paragraph 4.b.(i).”
f. Result:
Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b), 4(b)(i), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
h. Uniform Rules cited:
5(e), 14(a), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited:
America Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, Case
No. FA 93766; America Online Inc. v. Chinese ICQ Network, Case No. D20000808; Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Lizmi, Case No. FA 94329; Hewlett-Packard
Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., Case No. FA 95083; Wrenchead.com,
Inc. v. Hammersla, Case No. D2000-1222; Globosat Programadora Ltda. v.
Artmidia Comunicacao Visual Criacao E Arte Ltda, Case No. D2000-0605;
Randstad General Partnet, LLC v. Domains For Sale For You, Case No. D20000051; The Step2 Co. v. Softastic.som Corp., Case No. D2000-0393.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1734.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Phat Fashions LLC v. Kevin Kruger, No. FA0012000096193
Date: December 29, 2000
Panelist(s):
Irving H. Perluss
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<phattpharm.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
1) “In addition, to the demonstration of bad faith by the application of the ACPA,
and subparagraph (iv) of Section 4b of the Policy, there is a legal presumption of
bad faith, when, Respondent should have been aware of Complainant’s famous
and distinctive trademark. This is ‘constructive bad faith,’ and it does not mean
that Respondent is a bad person.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(b)(iv), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
Anticyberquatting Consumer
Protection Act, 15 U.S.C.A. 1125(d); Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix,
17
MIL2087.doc
Inc., (CA 9th 1999) 184 F.3d 1107; Green Products Co. v. Independence ByProducts Co., (N.D. Iowa 1997) 992 F.Supp. 1070.
1735. Sunglass Hut Corporation v. Johuathan Investments, Inc.,
No. FA0012000096178
a. Date: January 2, 2001
b. Panelist(s):
James A. Carmody
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<watchstations.com>
d. Response?: No
e. Principle(s): None
f. Result:
Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(b)(iv), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
h. Uniform Rules cited:
5(e), 14(a), 15(a)
i. Panel Decisions cited:
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens,
Case No. D2000-0716; Crédit Lyonnais v. Association Etre Ensemble, Case No.
D2000-1426; Woolworths plc v. David Anderson, Case No. D2000-1113; Perot
Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, Case No. FA 95312.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1736.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
WebMD Corporation v. Cupcake Patrol, No. FA0011000096106
Date: January 2, 2001
Panelist(s):
Ralph Yachnin
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<wemd.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) Registering a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to
the web site solely for commercial gain, by using a domain name that is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous mark is evidence of registration and
use in bad faith.
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
15(a)
Panel Decisions cited:
Bank of American Corp. v. InterMos, Case FA
95092; Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, Case No. D2000-0716;
Pavillion Agency, Inc., Cliff Greenhouse and Keith Greenhouse v. Greenhouse
Agency Ltd., and Glenn Greenhouse, Case No. D2000-1221; Reuters Ltd. v.
Global Net 2000, Inc., Case No. D2000-0441; Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, Case
No. FA 95312.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1737. Caterpillar Inc. v. DES-CATE Sociedad Limitada (Urb. Mas Aliu),
No. FA0011000096077
a. Date: December 26, 2000
b. Panelist(s):
Carlos Rodriguez Garcia
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<desguacescaterpillar.com,
desguacecaterpillar.com>
18
MIL2087.doc
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Response?: Yes
Principle(s): None
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited:
14, 15
Panel Decisions cited:
Grundfos A/S v. Lokale, Case No. D2000-1347;
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Quin, Case No. D2000-0314; State Farm v. Kaufman, Case
No. FA 94335.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1738.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Aurora Group v. Kevin Huribut, No. AF-0525
Date: December 27, 2000
Panelist(s):
Michael L. Wachtell
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<sweetsurrender.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “The mere fact that the name is used as a link to adult sites, no matter now
pornographic the materials linked may be, does not disqualify the Respondent’s
rights for the purposes of these proceedings.”
Result:
Decision for Respondent
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(b), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited:
5, 14(a), 15(a)
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1739.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Mike Haag, No. AF-0585a, AF-0585b
Date: December 29, 2000
Panelist(s):
M. Scott Donahey
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<cisco-online.com, cisco-online.net>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “Prior Panel decisions have found that neither the addition of hyphens in a
domain name or the addition of the world ‘online’ to the mark in a domain
name will preclude a finding of substantial similarity.”
2) “The registration of a domain name which is confusingly similar to a
famous mark has been found to be bad faith registration.”
3) “[P]rior panel decisions have found that where an authorized reseller of
products of a complainant has registered as a domain name and used on a
web site to which the domain name resolves, the trademarks of the
complainant without any authorization from the complainant, this
constitutes bad faith use of the domain name.”
4) “[T]he list of circumstances included in Para. 4(b) of the Policy is not
exhaustive.”
f. Result:
Name transfer
g. Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h. Uniform Rules cited:
15(a)
19
MIL2087.doc
i. Panel Decisions cited:
Creo Products Inc. & anor v. Website in
Development, Case No. D2000-0160; Easyjet Airline Company Limited v. Stephen
B. Harding, Case No. D2000-0398; Royal Bank of Canada v. D3M Domain Sales,
Case No. AF-0147; Jamaica and UniqueVacations, Inc. v. Zelby, Case No. FA
94931; Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. v. Raymond, Case No. D2000007; Ronson plc v. Unimetal Sanayai ve Tic.A.S., Case No. D2000-0011;
Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications, Inc.,
Case No. D2000-0270; Zwack Unicum Rt. v. Erica J. Duna, Case No. D20000037; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D20000003.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1740.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1741.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Education World, Inc. v. Education World, No. FA0011000096078
Date: December 29, 2000
Panelist(s):
James P. Buchele
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<educationworld.org>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “The addition of the ‘.org’ and the elimination of the space between words
in the mark do not deprive the Complainant’s rights in the mark by
establishing a distinct mark.”
2) “Offering competitive services in connection with a domain name which
infringes upon another’s trademark is not a bona fide offering of goods
and services under Policy 4.c.(i).
3) “Respondent’s failure to provide any correct contact information since at
least August 2000 in either NSI’s WHOIS database…or on the web site
associated with the subject domain name is an indicia of bad faith as
envisioned under ICANN’s Dispute Resolution Policy.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(ii), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
15(a)
Panel Decisions cited:
Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Industrial Sales Corp.,
Case No. FA 95856; Franpin SA v. Paint Tools S.L., Case No. D2000-0052.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
Gutterbolt, Inc. v. NYI Building Products Inc., No. FA0011000096076
Date: December 29, 2000
Panelist(s):
James P. Buchele
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<gutterbolt.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “The demanded consideration does not have to be monetary in nature but
can be anything of value that exceeds the amount spent in registering and
maintaining the domain name.”
20
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1742.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1743.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
2) “The Respondent’s attempt to use the domain name as a bargaining tool in
order to receive compensation for a failed business attempt is evidence of
bad faith registration and use.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(i), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited:
15(a)
Panel Decisions cited:
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. v. Club Car Executive
Transportation and Dennis Rooney, Case No. D2000-0611; Cruzeiro
Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen and Sallen Enterprises, Case No. D2000-0715;
Metallica v. Schneider, Case No. FA 95636; Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition,
Inc. v. Garrett, Case No. FA 94293.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
Buzzer, Inc. v. Refract LLC, No. FA0011000095968
Date: December 26, 2000
Panelist(s):
Henry W. Blizzard, Jr.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<buzzer.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
1) “Respondent is not known by the domain name nor makes any use of the
name, and therefore Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest to the
domain name in question.”
2) Registration for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring
the name for such a consideration, that is in excess of the actual costs, is
not registration for a legitimate purpose and is an act of bad faith.
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
Phone-N-Phone Services (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Shlomi
(Salomon) Levi, Case No. D2000-0040; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com,
Inc., Case No. FA 95162; Dynojet Research Inc. v. Norman, Case No. AF-0316.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
Robo Enterprises, Inc. v. Orvin Tobiason, No. FA0010000095857
Date: December 24, 2000
Panelist(s):
Tyrus R. Atkinson
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<roboenterprises-investors.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
1) “Simply adding a generic word in addition to the service mark of
Complainant does not make the domain name and service mark not
confusingly similar.”
2) “[W]hen one establishes a web site as a criticism of Complainant’s
products,…Respondent subjects himself to the proposition that ‘Since
Respondent’s avowed purpose is to create and maintain a consumer
complaint site concerning the Complainant’s products, the domain name
21
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
would be of little use to Respondent if they were not of sufficient
confusing similarity with Complainant’s trade or service marks so as to
attract potential complainants.”
3) “It is inappropriate to permit trademark owners to shut down sites that are
aimed at criticism of the trademark holder because the content contained
in site is unfair, unwarranted, or untrue. Trademark rights may be limited
by First Amendment concerns.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)(iii), 4(c)(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
Quixtar Inv., Inc. v. Smithberger and QUIXTARIBO, Case No. D2000-0138; Estee Lauder, Inc. v. estelauder.com, estelauder.net
and Jeff Hanna, Case No. D2000-0869; America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm.
Corp., Case No. FA 93668; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. wallmartcanadasucks.com
and Kenneth J. Harvey, Case No. D2000-1104; The New York Times Co. v. New
York Internet Services, Case No. D2000-1072; Mission KwaSizabantu v.
Benjamin Rost, Case No. D2000-0279; E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Hanna Law Firm,
Case No. D2000-0615; The New York Times Co. v. New York Internet Services,
Case No. D2000-1072.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals v. Dougherty, 113 F.Supp.2d 915 (E.D. Va. 2000); OBH, Inc. v. Spotlight
Magazine, Inc., 86 F.Supp.2d (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
1744.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Pizza Express Plc v. Easthaven Ltd., No. AF-0576
Date: December 29, 2000
Panelist(s):
Ross Carson
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<pizzaexpress.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s): None
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1745.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Scholastic, Inc. v. Steward Consulting/Randy Steward, No. CPR 016
Date: October 14, 2000
Panelist(s):
Louis E. Dembeck, Jerome T. Wolf, Thomas M. Pitegoff
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<babysitterclub.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s): None
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
22
MIL2087.doc
1746.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Scholastic, Inc. v. Bryan S. Tartus/Floral Visions Inc., No. CPR 015
Date: October 14, 2000
Panelist(s):
Louise E. Dembeck, Jerome T. Wolf, Thomas M. Pitegoff
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<planetscholastic.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) Avoiding responsibility and failing to respond to correspondence from the
Panels Administrator constitutes evidence of bad faith.
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1747.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Scholastic, Inc. v. Michael S. Watson/Pendragon Consulting, No. CPR 014
Date: October 14, 2000
Panelist(s):
Louise E. Dembeck, Jerome T. Wolf, Thomas M. Pitegoff
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<cyberscholastics.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s): None
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1748.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Scholastic, Inc. v. Dan Waters, No. CPR 013
Date: October 14, 2000
Panelist(s):
Louise E. Dembeck, Jerome T. Wolf, Thomas M. Pitegoff
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<scholastictoys.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s): None
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1749. Nutrisystem.com, Inc. v. Easthaven, Ltd., No. CPR 012
a. Date: October 11, 2000
b. Panelist(s):
James P. O’Shaughnessy, Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Robert J.
Ellicott
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<sweetsuccess.com>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
23
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1) “[T]he federal registrations of the mark supply prima facie evidence that
Complainant enjoys valid trademark rights. Complainant need not supply
evidence of secondary meaning…once the fact of federal registration is
accepted.”
Result:
Decision for Respondent
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1750. Udomain Web Hosting Company, Limited v. Newsbook Limited,
No. CPR 011
a. Date: October 6, 2000
b. Panelist(s):
David Sandborg
c. Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<udomain.com, udomain.org>
d. Response?: Yes
e. Principle(s):
1) If Respondent has never registered or used the domain name(s) in question, it is
not the proper party in the dispute.
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
1751.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
E-Builder, Inc. v. Building Online, No. CPR 008
Date: December 5, 2000
Panelist(s):
M. Scott Donahey, Sherman G. Finesilver, G. Gervaise Davis, III
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<ebuilder.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s): None
Result:
Decision for Respondent
Policy cited: 4(a)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
Readygo, Inc. v. Michael Lerner Productions, Case
No. D2000-0298; EFG Bank European Financial Group SA v. Jacob Foundation,
Case No. D2000-0036.
j. Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
1752.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Cello Holdings, LLC. v. Lawrence-Dahl Co., No. AF-0506
Date: December 21, 2000
Panelist(s):
Richard D. Faulkner
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<cello.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s): None
Result:
Name transfer
24
MIL2087.doc
g.
h.
i.
j.
1753.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1754.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited:
None
Panel Decisions cited:
None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
Anticybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act, Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc., 2000 U.S. App.
LEXIS 1246, 53 U.S.P.Q. 2D (BNA) 1570.
Sony Corporation v. RK Enterprises, No. FA0011000096109
Date: December 26, 2000
Panelist(s):
James A. Carmody
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<walkman.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “Respondent’s failure to show evidence sufficient to refute Complainant’s
assertions, entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or
legitimate interests in regard to the domain name at issue.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(i), 4(b)(iv), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
15(a)
Panel Decisions cited:
State Fair of Texas v. State Fair Guides, Case No.
FA 95066; Microsoft Corp. v. Amit Mehrotra, Case No. D2000-0053; Treeforms,
Inc. v. Cayne Industrial Sales Corp., Case No. FA 95856; The Boeing Co. v.
Nicola Bressi, Case No. D2000-1164; Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, Case No. FA
95312; Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., Case No. D2000-0471.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, No. FA0011000096102
Date: December 23, 2000
Panelist(s):
Ralph Yachnin
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<lubbockradiopagingservice.com,
lubbockradiopaging.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “Registering a domain name that infringes upon another’s mark to capitalize on
the other party’s good will associated with that mark is not a bona fide use of a
domain name, no matter if the use is commercial or non-commercial.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(a)(iii), 4(b)(iii), 4(b)(iv), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited:
5(e), 14(a),15(a)
Panel Decisions cited:
Fishtech v. Rossiter, Case No. FA 92976; Roberts v.
Boyd, Case No. D2000-0210; BMW AG v. Loophole, Case No. D2000-1156;
Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Industrial Sales Corp., Case No. FA 95856; Tuxedos by
Rose v. Hector Nunez, Case No. 95248; Southern Exposure v. Southern Exposure,
Inc., Case No. FA 94864; Luck’s Music Library v. Stellar Artist Management,
Case No. FA 95650.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
None
25
MIL2087.doc
1755.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Ripley Entertainment v. Lily Ko, No. FA0011000096001
Date: December 23, 2000
Panelist(s):
Ralph Yachnin
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<ripleysbelieveitornot.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
1) “The addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is
without legal significance.”
2) “The list of circumstances does not exhaust the Panel’s inquiry regarding
the element of bad faith, since the Policy indicates that its listing of bad
faith factors is without limitation.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
Uniform Rules cited:
15(a)
Panel Decisions cited:
BMG AG v. Loophole, Case No. D2000-1156;
MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, Case No. D2000-1204; Westfield Corp. v.
Graeme, Michael Hobbs, Case No. D2000-0227; TV Globo Ltda v.
Globoesportes.com, Case No. D2000-0791.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited:
Sporty’s Farm v. Sportsman’s
Market, 202 F.2d 489 (2nd Cir. 2000).
1756. National Collegiate Athletic Association and March Madness Athletic
Association, L.L.C. v. Mark Halpern and Front & Center Entertainment,
Case No. D2000-0700
a.
Date:
December 10, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David W. Plant
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<final-four.org, final4.org,
finalfourtickets.net, finalfour-tickets.com, finalfour-tickets.net, marchmadness.org, ncaatickets.org, final-4.net, final-4.org, finalfourticketsforsale.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Names transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(c)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: NCAA v. Rodd Garner et al, Case No. D2000-0940;
ISL Marketing et al v. J.Y. Chung et al, Case No. D2000-0034, Wal-Mart
v.Walmarket Canada, Case No. D2000-0150, Yahoo! v. David Ashby, Case No.
D2000-0241, PACCAR v. Enyart Associates et al, Case No. D2000-0289,
Ermenegildo Zegna v. Estco Enterprises, Case No. D2000-0395, Chanel v. Estco
Technology, Case No. D2000-0413, Yahoo! v. Jorge O. Kirovsky, Case No.
D2000-0428, USOC v. Tri B-U-N Eco. Project, Case No. D2000-0435, Toshiba v.
Distribution Purchasing, Case No. D2000-0464, Yahoo! v, Domain Collection,
Case No. 2000-0476, Wal-Mart v. Walsucks, Case No. Dw000-0477, Guerlain v.
HI Investments,Case No. D2000-0494, Yahoo! et al v. Data Art et al, Case No.
D2000-0587; Telstra v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003
26
MIL2087.doc
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1757. FLOS S.P.A. v. Victory Interactive Media SA, Case No. D2000-771
a.
Date:
December 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Bridgeman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<flos.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
i.
“Although the Complainant has pointed out that the document is
not conclusive evidence of the existence of said contractual
relationship, in the view of this Administrative Panel the
Respondent’s claim to rights in the said Tunisian trademark and
the Respondent’s claim to be engaged in providing services to
the airline industry are sufficient, to allow this Administrative
Panel to conclude that the Complainant has not satisfied the
second element of the test set out in paragraph 4 of the Policy
and has not established that the Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interest in the said domain name.”
ii.
“…this Administrative Panel is conscious that because of the
summary nature of the procedures under the Policy, the Rules
and the Supplemental Rules, there are limitations on an
administrative panel’s ability to test the evidence submitted in
circumstances such as this case. When there is such a significant
conflict in the evidence submitted, as in the present case, the
evidence could be better tested in another forum.”
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1758. Sudnif S.A. v. Tulle, Case No. D2000-0807
a.
Date:
September 25, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Knud Wallberg
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<findus.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s): “It is however, not in itself an act of bad faith to register
and sell domain names. Bad faith only occurs if the domain name infringes rights
belonging to someone else, and if the registration is made with the intention of
somehow disrupting or damaging the business of the holder of the said right. If
the Registrant has a legitimate interest in the domain name but nevertheless is
willing to sell it to someone else who also has a legitimate interest in the domain
name this can not be considered as an action performed in bad faith.”
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(, 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
27
MIL2087.doc
i.
j.
Panel Decisions cited: None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1759. Blue Martini Software, Inc. v. Entredomains, Inc., Case No. D2000-0917
a.
Date:
November 24, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Mark V. B. Partridge
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<bluemartinisoftware.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1760. Debbie Robus and Greg Robus v. Nicky Suard (DrivenOne, Inc.), Case
No. D2000-0941
a.
Date:
December 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
William L. Mathis
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<workkamper.com, workampers.com,
workcampers.net, workcampers.com, workcamper.org, workcamper.net,
workcamper.com >
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: 15 U.S.C. 1115(b); 15 U.S.C. §
1065(4); Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 561 F.2d 75,
80-81 (7th Cir. 1977); Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 496
U.S. 189, 83 L. Ed. 2d 582, 105 S. Ct. 658, 224 U.S.P.Q. 327 (1985);
Brookfield Communications Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174
F. 3d 1036, 1055, (9th Cir. 1999)
1761. Empresa Brasileira de Compressores S.A - EMBRACO v. Artimidida
Comunicação Visual Criação e Arte Ltda, Case No. D2000-0943
a.
Date:
December 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Luiz Edgard Montaury Pimenta, Mark Partridge, Geert
Glas
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<embraco.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
28
MIL2087.doc
i.
j.
Panel Decisions cited: None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1762. AT&T Corp. v. Creative Café BBS, Case No. D2000-0994
a.
Date:
November 2, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Natasha C. Lisman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<attjens.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
i.
“Because the first three letters of "attjens.com" do not stand out, it
is not confusingly similar to AT&T’s trademarks.”
ii.
“On this record, only a facial comparison of the disputed domain
name to the Complainant’s marks is possible. It is conceivable that,
when similarity is not apparent, latent similarity can be
demonstrated by some additional evidence, such as a survey of a
random sample of Internet users. AT&T offered no such
evidence.”
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: AT&T Corp. v. Tala Alamuddin, Case No. D20000249
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: AT&T Corp. v. SYNET, INC., 1997
WL 89228 (1997); Sport’s Farm LLC v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc. 202
F.3d 489, 498 n.11 (2d Cir. 2000).
1763. Losango Promotora de Vendas Ltda. V Italo de Barros Naddeo, Case
No. D2000-1053
a.
Date:
December 18, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<losango.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1764. CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Rossi Hassad, Case No. D2000-1064
a.
Date:
November 29, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard G. Lyon
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<cbspolls.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
29
MIL2087.doc
g.
h.
i.
j.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited: 15
Panel Decisions cited: CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Sale's, Case No. D20000255; United States Olympic Committee v. Tri B-N-Eco. Project, Case No.
D2000-0435
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1765. ColArt Fine Art & Graphics Limited v. Michael Wilcox School of Colour,
Case No. D2000-1090
a.
Date:
October 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Dawn Osborne
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<winsorandnewton.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1766. John Swire & Sons Limited v. David Huang, Case No. D2000-1106
a.
Date:
December 5, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
D.J. Ryan, David Heathcote, Tatham Teruo Doi
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<swiregroup.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Mondich and American Wine Biscuits v. Brown,
Case No. D2000-0004; Telstra v. Nuclear Marshmallows Case D20000003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1767. Jefferson Smurfit Group plc v. Stephen Davidson Inc, Case No. D2000-1117
a.
Date:
December 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Dan Hunter
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<smurfitprint.com, smurfitpack.com,
smurfitbox.net, smurfiteurope.com, smurfitasia.com, smurfituk.com,
smurfitgroup.com, smurfitpackaging.com, smurfitprint.net>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Names transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
30
MIL2087.doc
i.
j.
Panel Decisions cited: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lars Stork, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0628; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0713; Wal-mart Stores, Inc. v. Yongsoo Hwang, NOWALMART and NO-WALMART.COM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0838;
AltaVista Company v. S.M.A., Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0927; Yahoo!
Inc. v. Microbiz, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1050; Viacom International
Inc. v Sung Wook Choi and M Production, WIPO Case No. D2000-1114;
Amway Corporation, Inc. v. Business Internet Connection and Rex Mehta,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1118
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1768. Savino Del Bene Inc. v. Graziano Innocenti Gennari, Case No. D2000-1133
a.
Date:
December 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Andrea Mondini
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<savinodelbene.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Adobe Systems Inc. v. Domain OZ, Case No.
D2000-0057; CSA Int'l v. Shannon, Case No. D2000-0071; Mrs. America
Productions, Inc. v E.T. Corp., NAF 0003000094377; Telstra Corp. Ltd.
v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. 2000-0003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1769. RICKY SKAGGS v. W. IGNACIO VINCENTE, Case No. D2000-1136
a.
Date:
December 18, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Hugues G. Richard
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<rickyskaggs.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 14
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Bill Keith, Case
D2000-0299, Jeanette Winterson v. Mark Hogarth, Case No. D20000235, Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russel Boyd, Case No. D2000-0210; Steven
Rattner v. BuyThisDomainName (John Pepin), Case No. D2000-0402; In
Jules I. Kendall v. Donald Mayer Re skipkendall.com, Case No. D20000868; Helen Fielding v. Anthony Corbert aka Anthony Corbett, Case No.
D2000-1000; Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. v. Raymond,
Case No. D2000-007; Ronson Plc v. Unimetal Sanayai ve Tic. A.S., Case
No. D2000-0011
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
31
MIL2087.doc
1770. Efficient Networks, Inc. v. Speedstream, Case No. D2000-1136
a.
Date:
December 10, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard G. Lyon
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<speedstream>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 3, 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Senco Products, Inc. v. Camp CreekCo., Inc., Case
No. D2000-0590
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1771. Vert Tech Llc v. Computer Chronicles, Case No. D2000-1144
a.
Date:
December 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Clive N. A. Trotman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<textilewebsite.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Telia AB v. Alex Ewaldsson and Birgitta
Ewaldsson, Case No. D2000-0599; InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Delighters, Inc.
d/b/a Cyber Joe’s Internet Cafe, Case No. D2000-0068; Infospace.com
Inc. v. Infospace Technology Co. Ltd., Case No. D2000-0074;
InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Hari Prakash, Case No. D2000-0076;
InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Registrar Administrator Lew Blanck, Case No.
D2000-0069; Gateway, Inc. v. Pixelera.com, Inc. Case No. D2000-0109;
SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Tariq Masood and Solo Signs, Case No.
D2000-0131
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1772. NOVUS CREDIT SERVICES INC. v. PERSONAL, Case No. D2000-1158
a.
Date:
November 29, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jacques A. Léger
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<wwwdiscovercard.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc. v.
Bassette, case No. D2000-0256; LLS International vs. Mark Freeman,
Case No. D2000-1080; Altavista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Ltd.,
Case No. D2000-0848; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas
32
MIL2087.doc
j.
and "Christiandior.net" Case No. D2000-0226; Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin,
Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. D20000163)
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1773. Mackenzie Laboratories Inc. v. Networqs and Nel-Tech Labs, Inc., Case
No. D2000-1162
a.
Date:
December 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
William L. Mathis
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<mackenzielabs.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1774. Bates Worldwide, Inc. v. MIC (Syed Hussain), Case No. D2000-1168
a.
Date:
December 18, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Terrell C. Birch
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<dwpbates.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Mary-Lynn Mondich and American Vintage Wine
Biscuits, Inc. v. Shane Brown, doing business as Big Daddy’s Antiques
WIPO Case No. D2000-0004; Cortefiel, S.A. v. Miguel Garcia Quintas
WIPO Case No. D2000-0140; World Wrestling Federation Entertainment,
Inc. v. Michael Bosman WIPO Case No. D99-0001
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1775. Matmut v. Paul Tweed, Case No. D2000-1183
a.
Date:
November 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Christophe Imhoos
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<matmut.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 14(b), 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
33
MIL2087.doc
1776. The Elephant Sanctuary in Hohenwald v. Riddle’s Elephant Breeding Farm
and Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc., Case No. D2000-1190
a.
Date:
December 3, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Roderick M. Thompson; Elliot E. Polebaum; Nicolas
Ulmer
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<elephantsanctuary.org,
elephantsanctuary.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s): “Given the conclusion that Complainant has not met its
burden in relation to showing the existence of bad faith and an absence of
legitimate interests under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) of the ICANN
Policy, it is not necessary for the Panel to determine whether the domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights. Because there is some contention over whether
there is a trademark for ELEPHANT SANCTUARY as it relates to
providing sanctuary services to elephants and then which party would
have senior rights to the trademark, it is best not to reach an unnecessary
finding on this issue.”
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15(a), 15(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1777. America Online, Inc. v. Viper, Case No. D2000-1198
a.
Date:
November 28, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard Allan Horning
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<aolgirls.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Nokia Corporation v. Nokiagirls.com a.k.a IBCC,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0102; CCA Industries, Inc. v. Bobby R. Dailey,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0148; Nokia Corporation v. Nokiagirls.com a.k.a
IBCC, WIPO Case No. D2000-0102; Travel Services, Inc. v. Tour COOP
of Puerto Rico, NAF Case No. 0001000092524; Mondich and American
Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Brown, d/b/a Big Daddy's Antiques, Case No. D000004; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0003; Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. v Raymond,
Case No. D2000-0007
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Lucent Technologies, Inc. v.
Johnson, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16002; 56 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1637
(C.D.Cal. 2000)); Mattel, Inc. v. Internet Dimensions, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 9747, 2000 WL 973745, *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2000); Hasbro Inc.
34
MIL2087.doc
v. Internet Entertainment Group, Ltd., 1996, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11626, 40
U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1479, 1480 (W.D. Wash. 1996)
1778. MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, Case No. D2000-1204
a.
Date:
December 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Peter L. Michaelson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<msnbc.org>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: (15 USC § 1125(d)(1)
1779. NBA Properties, Inc. v. Adirondack Software Corporation, Case
No. D2000-1211
a.
Date:
December 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
William L. Mathis
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<knicks.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s): “The record fails to make clear what rights in the
trademark Complainant claims to have. The rights of a licensee are
contract rights with respect to, not in, the licensed marks. So it is also in
the case of a licensing and merchandising agent. There may well be
circumstances in which the contract rights possessed by an exclusive
licensee vest in him substantially all the powers of an owner of the
licensed property. However, such circumstances have not been shown to
exist here.”
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1780. Wrenchead.com, Inc. v. Alison Hammersla, Case No. D2000-1222
a.
Date:
December 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
M. Scott Donahey
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<wrenchheadpro.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. v.
Raymond, WIPO Case No. D2000-0007; Bronson Plc v. Unimetal Sanayai
35
MIL2087.doc
j.
ve Tic. A.S., WIPO Case No. D2000-0011; Gateway, Inc. v. David Ayers,
ICANN Case No. D2000-0106; The Chase Manhattan Corporation v.
Jehovah Technologies Pte Ltd, ICANN Case No. D2000-0388; 3636275
Canada, dba eResolution v. eResolution.com, ICANN Case No. D20000110
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1781. Taco Bell Corporation. v. Tango Bella, Case No. D2000-1229
a.
Date:
December 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gary Biesty
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<tacobell.net>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1782. DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corporation, Case No. D2000-1232
a.
Date:
December 7, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Andrea Jaeger-Lenz
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<5asec.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 3(b)(ix), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corporation Limited vs. Nuclear
Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1783. Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp. v. S. Chin, Case No. D2000-1236
a.
Date:
December 11, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James W. Dabney
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<1800mattress.om>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi,
Case No. D2000-0847
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1784. American Home Products Corporation v. Eagle Spirit Adventures, Case
36
MIL2087.doc
No. D2000-1239
a.
Date:
December 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Douglas D. Reichert
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<americanhomeproducts.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
i.
“As specifically noted in WIPO Administrative Panel Decision
D2000-0454, each of the words "American", "home", and
"products", taken individually, are generic or commonly
descriptive. In order for the term "American Home Products" itself
to enjoy legal protection as a trademark, either through registration
or by common law, these words in combination must have
acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning. As noted above,
the materials submitted by Complainant are not adequate to show
acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning for the term
‘American Home Products’.”
ii.
“…there is no evidence on the record of this proceeding showing
that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name
for a purpose coming within the scope of the enumerated
circumstances which may be taken as evidence of bad faith under
the Policy. Nor has any other circumstance amounting to bad faith
been shown.”
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1785. Digital Channel Partners Ltd. v. Bilham Solutions and Marlies Bilham, Case
No. D2000-1246
a.
Date:
December 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
John Katz
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<"dcpglobal.com"; "dcp-global.com"; "dcplabs.com"; "dcpeurope.com"; "dcpamericas.com"; "dcpasiapac.com">
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Dawnay Day & Co Ltd v Cantor
Fitzgerald International [2000] RPC 669.
1786. Cadbury Limited v. Jonathan Harris, Case No. D2000-1249
a.
Date:
December 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David H Tatham
37
MIL2087.doc
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<cadburyland.com>
Response?: Yes
Principle(s):
i.
“The Respondents claims to be operating a responsible and
respectable business and that it required a .com website for
its new business venture offering branded products in the
entertainments field, for which the disputed domain name
cadburyland.com was suitable. It also claims to developing
websites for a model agency, and a casting agency.”
ii.
“According to its website, the services of WBK
International are said to be: Internet Security Technology
Assessments Contingency Planning; Corporate Security
Investigative services Loss control…”
iii.
“Both the original and the subsequent response make it
clear that it is the business which required the disputed
domain name. However if, in 21 years, the company has
not strayed any further from the above core businesses,
then the Panel finds it difficult to credit that it is now
contemplating branching out into such completely diverse
areas of business as branded products for the entertainment
industry, a model agency or a casting agency.”
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
Uniform Rules cited: 12
Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear
Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-003
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1787. Ivenue.com v Jeffrey Russell, Case No. D2000-1251
a.
Date:
December 18, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Terrell C. Birch
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<ivenue.org, inetba.net, inetba.org>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Mary-Lynn Mondich and American Vintage Wine
Biscuits, Inc. v. Shane Brown, doing business as Big Daddy’s Antiques
WIPO Case No. D2000-0004; Cortefiel, S.A. v. Miguel Garcia Quintas
WIPO Case No. D2000-0140; Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang, D2000-0055;
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Toyota Motor Corporation v. S&S
Enterprises Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2000-0802; The Frozfruit Company v.
Maui Bound Media Group, D2000-0851; World Wrestling Federation
Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman WIPO Case No. D99-0001;
General Electric Company v. Normina Ansalt a/k/s Igor Fyordorov,
38
MIL2087.doc
j.
WIPO Case No. D2000-0452; The Price Company v. Price Club, also
known as Tsung-Pei Chang, WIPO Case No. D2000-0664; Telstra
Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marhsmallows, WIPO Case No. D20000003
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1788. Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. v. HarperStephens, Case
No. D2000-1254
a.
Date:
December 13, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
M. Scott Donahey, Carol Anne Been, Dennis Arthur Foster
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<findharrypotter.com>, <findharrypotter.org>,
<findharrypotter.net>, <freeharrypotter.com>, <freeharrypotter.org>,
<freeharrypotter.net>, <potterharrypotter.com>, <potterharrypotter.org>,
<potterharrypotter.net>, <theharrypottermovie.com>,
<theharrypottermovie.org>, <theharrypottermovie.net>,
<harrypotterproductions.org>, <harrypottershoppe.com>,
<harrypottershoppe.net>, <harrypottershoppe.org>, <harrypotterbooks.org>,
<harrypotter1.net>, <harrypotter1.org>, <harrypotter2.net>,
<harrypotter2.org>, <harrypotter3.net>, <harrypotter3.org>,
<harrypottercd.com>, <harrypottercd.net>, <harrypottercd.org>,
<harrypotterdvd.com>, <harrypotterdvd.net>, <harrypotterdvd.org>,
<harrypotterdvds.com>, <harrypotterdvds.net>, <harrypotterdvds.org>,
<harrypotterfilm.org>, <harrypotterfilms.net>, <harrypotterfilms.org>,
<harrypotterfour.com>, <harrypotterfour.net>, <harrypotterfour.org>,
<harrypotterhollywood.com>, <harrypotterhollywood.net>,
<harrypotterhollywood.org>, <harrypotterinhollywood.com>,
<harrypotterinhollywood.net>, <harrypotterinhollywood.org>,
<harrypottermedia.com>, <harrypottermedia.net>, <harrypottermedia.org>,
<harrypottermovies.org>, <harrypottermp3.com>, <harrypottermp3.net>,
<harrypottermp3.org>, <harrypottermusic.com>, <harrypottermusic.net>,
<harrypottermusic.org>, <harrypotterone.com>, <harrypotterone.net>,
<harrypotterone.org>, <harrypotterpicture.com>, <harrypotterpicture.net>,
<harrypotterpicture.org>, <harrypotterpictures.com>,
<harrypotterpictures.org>, <harrypotterpictures.net>,
<harrypotterposter.com>, <harrypotterposter.net>, <harrypotterposter.org>,
<harrypotterposters.com>, <harrypotterposters.net>,
<harrypotterposters.org>, <harrypotters.net>, <harrypotters.org>,
<harrypottershops.com>, <harrypottershops.net>, <harrypottershops.org>,
<harrypottersmovie.com>, <harrypottersmovie.net>,
<harrypottersmovie.org>, <harrypottersstore.com>, <harrypottersstore.net>,
<harrypottersstore.org>, <harrypotterstore.net>, <harrypotterstore.org>,
<harrypotterstudios.com>, <harrypotterstudios.net>,
<harrypotterstudios.org>, <harrypotterthree.com>, <harrypotterthree.net>,
<harrypotterthree.org>, <harrypottertwo.com>, <harrypottertwo.net>,
<harrypottertwo.org>, <harrypottervideos.net>, <harrypottervideos.org>,
<harrypottervideos.net>, <clickharrypotter.com>, <clickharrypotter.net>,
39
MIL2087.doc
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
<clickharrypotter.org>, <firstharrypotter.com>, <firstharrypotter.net>,
<firstharrypotter.org;>, <hollywoodharrypotter.com>,
<hollywooodharrrypotter.net>, <hollywoodharrypotter.org>
<mp3harrypotter.com>, <mp3harrypotter.com>, <mp3harrypotter.net>, and
<mp3harrypotter.org>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(ii), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited: 15
Panel Decisions cited: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada,
ICANN Case No. D2000-0150; Eauto, L.L.C. v. Triple S Auto Parts d/b/a
Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0047; United
States Olympic Committee v. MIC, ICANN Case No. D2000-0189;
Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. v. Raymond, ICANN Case
No. D2000-0007; Ronson plc v. Unimetal Sanayai ve Tic.A.S., ICANN
Case No. D2000-0011; Document Technologies, Inc. v. International
Electronic Communications, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0270;
Potomac Mills Limited Partnership v. Gambit Capital Management,
ICANN Case No. D2000-0062; ISL Marketing AG, Federation
International de Football Association v. J.Y. Chung, Worldcup2002.com,
W Co. and Worldcup 2002, ICANN Case No. D2000-0034; Telstra Corp.,
Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, ICANN Case No. D2000-0003; Cellular
One Group v. Brien, ICANN Case No. D2000-0028;
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1789. Kimberly-Clark Corporation v Domenico Rossi, Case No. D2000-1263
a.
Date:
December 4, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Ross Carson, M. Scott Donahey, Andrea Mondini
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<scottex.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, ICANN Case
No. D2000-0624; World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case
No. D99-0001
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1790. BSA v. Paul Tweed, Case No. D2000-1401
a.
Date:
December 11, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Thomas H. Webster
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<bridel.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
40
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited: None
Panel Decisions cited: Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group, Case No.
D2000-0413; BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co KG v. Paul Tweed, Case No.
2000-0418; Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D20000003; Metabolife International v. Robert Williams, Case No. D2000-0630
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1791. John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v. Domain Names 4U and Fred Gray, Case
No. D2000-1403
a.
Date:
December 13, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Sir Ian Barker, Andrew Christie, Dr. Richard Hill
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<financialreview.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s): “…it would appear unlikely that the Respondents were
aware (before the Complaint was filed) that an Australian organization had
a registered trademark or a common law mark in what would appear to be
a generic term. For the same reason, the Panel holds that bad faith
registration cannot be assumed.”
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: VZ VermögensZentrum AG v. Anything.com Case
No. D2000-0527
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1792. Timo Maas v Pokher Dot Limited, Case No. D2000-0890
a.
Date:
December 13, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Nick Gardner
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<timomaas.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 10
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1793. Viz Communications, Inc., v. Redsun dba www.animerica.com and David
Penava, Case No. D2000-0905
a.
Date:
December 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Alan L Limbury, Ian Barker, Irving Perluss
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<animerica.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
41
MIL2087.doc
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
“If a Respondent raises matter which the Complainant could not
have been expected to have addressed in its Complaint, admission
of an uninvited reply may be warranted in the interests of fairness.
It would be an odd result if the panel may request a reply in such
circumstances under Rule 12 but must refuse an uninvited reply on
the same topic, simply because there is no express provision for
such a reply in the Rules.”
“Although the Complainant did not apply to register its trademark
until after the Respondents registered the disputed domain name,
the panel is prepared to accept that, by then, after 10 years of use
as the name of the Complainant’s publications, the name
ANIMERICA had, in the field of printed publications in which the
Complainant was engaged, become distinctive of the publications
of the Complainant. The Complainant has therefore established
that it had rights in the mark at common law at the time of
registration of the disputed domain name and that, at the time of
the initiation of this proceeding, it also had rights in the registered
trademark in respect of publications.”
“Because of the relative weakness of the then common law
trademark; the absence of evidence that the Complainant’s
publications circulated outside the United States; and the evidence
that the Respondents were in Japan and did not have experience in
the United States, the Complainant has not satisfied the panel that
the Respondents were aware of the trademark before the domain
name was registered.”
“The panel has found that the Complainant has not shown that the
Respondents were aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the
time the disputed domain name was registered. This finding is fatal
to any finding of bad faith registration in this case. It follows that
the panel rejects as unproven the assertion that the domain name
was chosen deliberately and intentionally so as to divert to the
Respondent’s Web site traffic intended for the Complainant.”
“Since June 1998 at the latest, the Respondents have been fully
aware that the Complainant asserted rights to the trademark and
sought from the Respondents that they cease and desist. Yet the
Respondents have continued the activities to which the
Complainant objects. The questions arise whether…the
Respondents’ conduct after June 1998 constitutes bad faith use
within Policy 4(b)(iv) and, if so, whether this can transform the
Respondents’ registration into bad faith registration.”
“Here there is evidence that the domain name was registered for a
permissible purpose without knowledge of the Complainant’s
mark. Even if the panel were to reject all the Respondents’
arguments as to the differences between the parties’ fields of
activity, channels of communication etc and were to find that, once
the Respondents were put on notice of the Complainant’s claims,
42
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
their continued use of the domain name constituted bad faith use,
such use would not, in the view of the panel, suffice to prove that
the domain name was originally registered in bad faith.”
Result:
Decision for Respondent
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited: 15
Panel Decisions cited: In J.P.Morgan v. Resource Marketing Case No.
D2000-0035; Cedar Trade Associates, Inc. v. Ricks, Case No. FA93633;
Aero-Turbine, Inc. v. Mcayman, Ltd., Case No. FA93675; Travel
Services, Inc. v. Tour COOP of Puerto Rico, Case No. FA92524;
Heelquick!, Inc. v. Goldman, et al., Case No. FA92527; Easyjet Airline
Co., Ltd. v. Steggles, Case No. 2000-0024; Passion Group Inc. v. Usearch
Inc. Case No. AF 0250; Shirmax Retail Ltd./Détaillants Shirmax Ltée v.
CES Marketing Group Inc., Case No. AF-0104.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1794. Living Media, Limited v. India Services, Case No. D2000-0973
a.
Date:
December 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Marylee Jenkins
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<indiatoday.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1795. Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A., and Nestle India Ltd., v. M/s Sandesh
Medicos, Case No. D2000-0976
a.
Date:
December 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Clive N. A. Trotman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<cerelac.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 3(b)(xiii), 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1796. Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Españoles v. Jesús Hidalgo Álvarez, Case
No. D2000-1025
a.
Date:
December 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Pedro W. Buchanan
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<renfe.org>
43
MIL2087.doc
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Response?: No
Principle(s):
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited: 14(a), 15(a)
Panel Decisions cited: None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1797. America Online, Inc. v. Intellectual-Assets.com, Inc, Case No. D2000-1043
a.
Date:
Unknown
b.
Panelist(s):
Neil A. Smith
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<american-online.net>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1798. USA Video Interactive Corporation v. B.G. Enterprises, Case
No. D2000-1052
a.
Date:
December 13, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Mark V. B. Partridge, Frederick Abbott, David Perkins
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<usavideo.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s): The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly
similar to Complainant’s alleged mark. However, we find that
Complainant has failed to prove it has enforceable rights in the mark prior
to Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name in 1995.
Complainant has no registrations for the mark USA VIDEO and its
pending applications were filed after 1995, and in any event provide no
enforceable rights until registration actually issues.
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Rollerblade, Inc. CBNO and Ray Redican Jr.,
ICANN No. D2000-0427
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1799. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Y2K Concepts Corp., Case No. D2000-1065
a.
Date:
December 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
R. Eric Gaum
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<cbsone.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
44
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
Uniform Rules cited: None
Panel Decisions cited: Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, Case No.
D2000-0009; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, Case No.
D200-0150; CSA International v. John O’Shannon and Care Tech
Industries, Inc., Case No. D2000-0071
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1800. Nortel Networks Limited and Nortel Networks NA Inc. v. FastWrite Asia Co.
Ltd. and FastWrite, Case No. D2000-1119
a.
Date:
December 21, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Christopher Tootal
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<mynortelnetworks.com,
mybaynetworks.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1801. VeriSign, Inc. v. Naray Mobile Telecom, Inc., Case No. D2000-1138
a.
Date:
December 28, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gary Biesty
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<verisignkorea.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1802. Microsoft Corporation v. Mr. Shravan Debbad, Case No. D2000-1161
a.
Date:
December 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
R. Eric Gaum
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<123hotmail.com, hot6mail.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, Case No.
D2000-0009; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, Case No.
45
MIL2087.doc
j.
D2000-0150; CSA International v. John O’Shannon and Care Tech
Industries, Inc., Case No. D2000-0071; N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc. v.
Entredomains, Case No. D2000-0387; Milwaukee Radio Alliance, L.L.C.
v. WLZR-FM LAZER 103, Case No. D2000-0209
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1803. Wembley National Stadium Limited .v. Tim Gordon, Case No. D2000-1218
a.
Date:
December 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David Perkins
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<wembleystadiumonline.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1804. GRUPO PICKING PACK, S.A. f/k/a GRUPO HISPANO-SUIZA, S.A. v.
Prospero Moran and ASTURNET, S.L., Case No. D2000-1220
a.
Date:
December 18, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Roberto A. Bianchi
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<pickingpack.com, pickingpack.org>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 14(a), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union
CorpCase D2000-0020; SA International a.k.a. Canadian Standards
Association v. John O. Shannon and Care Tech Industries, Inc Case
D2000-0071; Geniebooks.com Corporation v. William E. Merrit tCase
D2000-0266; Bandon Dunes L.P. v. DefaultData.com Case No. D20000431; Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Hanna Law Office Case No. D20000856; New York-Presbyterian Hospital v. Tim Harris Case No. D20000669; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows Case No.
D2000-003;
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1805. DreamWorks L.L.C. v. Grantics, Case No. D2000-1269
a.
Date:
December 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Frederick M. Abbott
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<baggervance.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
46
MIL2087.doc
g.
h.
i.
j.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited: None
Panel Decisions cited: Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, Case No.
D2000-0044; Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. et al. v. Jack Myers, Case No.
D2000-0190
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Dr. Seuss Enterprises v.
Penguinbooks USA, 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997); United Artists v.
Exodus Motion Picture Corp., 26 Misc. 2d 807, 207 N.Y.S.2d 465 (Sup.
Ct. NY 1960); Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp., 888 F. 2d 609, 615
(9th Cir. 1989) Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Ross Bicycles, Inc., 870 F. 2d 1176,
1182 (7th Cir. 1989)
1806. Mistic Brands, Inc. v. Jorge Reynoso, Case No. D2000-1278
a.
Date:
December 4, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
R. Eric Gaum
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<mistic2000.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, Case
No. D2000-0150; CSA International v. John O’Shannon and Care Tech
Industries, Inc., Case No. D2000-0071
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1807. Media Research Center v. Nick Bucci, Case No. D2000-1280
a.
Date:
December 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Thomas L. Creel
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
< parentstelevisioncouncil.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1808. Etro S.p.a. v. Messrs. Mark O’Flynn, Luciano Carbonetti PGC s.r.l., Case
No. D2000-1289
a.
Date:
December 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Anna Carabelli
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<etroboutique.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
47
MIL2087.doc
g.
h.
i.
j.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited: None
Panel Decisions cited: Yahoo! Inc. v. Jorge O. Kirovsky WIPO D20000428; Spadel S.A v. Peter Kisters WIPO D2000-0526; Deutsche Bank AG
v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner WIPO D2000-0277; Talkcity Inc. v. Robertson
WIPO D2000-0009; Stella D’Oro Biscuit Co. Inc. v. The Patron Group
Inc, WIPO D2000-0012; Nabisco Brands co. V. The Patron Group Inc.
WIPO D2000-0032; Parfums Christian Dior V. 1 Network Inc.
WIPO D2000-0022; J.P. Morgan v. Resource Marketing WIPO D20000035
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1809. Coral Trademarks, Ltd. v. Eastern Net, Inc., Case No. D2000-1295
a.
Date:
December 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Roberto A. Bianchi
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<sabadogigante.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1810. Nilfisk-Advance A/S v. CLD and Mark & Marie Claire Morton, Case
No. D2000-1297
a.
Date:
December 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Petter Rindforth
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<nilfiskonline.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1811. Norisbank Aktiengesellschaft v. MSN, Case No. D2000-1307
a.
Date:
December 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Kamen Troller
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<norisbank.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
48
MIL2087.doc
i.
j.
Panel Decisions cited: Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone
Research, Inc., and Bridgestone Corporation v. Jack Myers, Case No.
WIPO D2000-0190; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear
Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1812. Justerini & Brooks Limited v. Juan Colmenar Rueda as Registrant
"Colmenar", aka "jokolm"/"JCR co.", Case No. D2000-1308
a.
Date:
December 11, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Keith F.Gymer
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<justeriniandbrooks.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 14, 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: British Telecommunications & Ors.
v. One in a Million Ltd. & Ors
1813. Edward Van Halen v. Deborah Morgan, Case No. D2000-1313
a.
Date:
December 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David H. Bernstein
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<edwardvanhalen>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
i.
Her status as a fan might perhaps justify a finding of legitimate
interests if she provided evidence of offline fan activity of which
the website was an extension or if the website had been operational
for a sufficient period. However, under the circumstances,
Respondent merely has an expectation of developing a legitimate
interest in the domain name at issue. This is insufficient to defeat
Complainant’s evidence that her use is unauthorized, although, as
discussed below, it is relevant to the separate issue of bad faith.
ii.
The Policy is … not designed to combat trademark infringement
on the Internet or even questionable cases of cybersquatting, but
rather, abusive, bad faith cybersquatting.
iii.
Respondent did not offer to sell the domain name to Complainant
or to others and apparently declined Complainant’s offer.
Respondent has not engaged in a pattern of registering domain
names "in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service
mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name,".
iv.
Because Respondent has not actually used the site at all, there also
is no evidence that she is not trying to confuse visitors, but,
because the burden on each factor rests with Complainant, the
Panel cannot infer bad faith without other evidence. If Respondent
49
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
were to make use in the future and seek commercial gain by
creating confusion, then Complainant might at that time have a
better case, but that is not the circumstance presented here.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited: None
Panel Decisions cited: Rita Rudner v. Internetco Corp., Case No. D20000581; Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic
Communications, Inc., Case No. D2000-0270; Sumner v. Urvan, Case No.
D2000-0596; Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Tella, Case No. D2000-0365;
Nintendo Inc. v. Alex Jones, Case No. D2000-0998; Apple Computer, Inc.
v. DomainHouse.com, Inc., Case No. D2000-0341; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico, Case No. D2000-0477; Fielding
v. Corbert, Case No. D2000-1000; Grand Prix Ltd. v. Sweeney, Case No.
D2000-0233; R&A Bailey & Co. v. WYSIWYG, Case No. D2000-0375
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1814. Skattedirektoratet v. Eivind Nag, Case No. D2000-1314
a.
Date:
December 18, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gerd F. Kunze, Jonas Gulliksson, George R.F.Souter
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<skatteetaten.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1815. La Societe Anonyme Des Bains De Mer Et Du Cercle Des Etrangers A
Monaco v. Internet Marketing Associates, Case No. D2000-1317
a.
Date:
November 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Benoit Van Asbroeck
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<casinomonaco.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s): Complainant has in this case rights in the trademark
"Casino de Monte-Carlo.” The domain name "casinomonaco.com" is
confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. For the Administrative
Panel, it is not relevant to distinguish "Monaco" from "Monte Carlo" since
Monte Carlo is commonly associated with the State of Monaco.
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
50
MIL2087.doc
1816. La Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Étrangers à Monaco v. Martimi
Bt., Case No. D2000-1318
a.
Date:
December 14, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Geert Glas
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<casino-monaco.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
i.
The Domain Name consists primarily of two words, namely
"Casino" and "Monaco". However, in order to determine whether
there is identity or confusing similarity, both the Domain Name
<casino-monaco.com> and Complainant’s trademark (Casino de
Monte-Carlo) must be examined and compared as a whole. While
there does not seem to be a visual similarity, such similarity is
more clearly present phonetically. Moreover, it cannot be excluded
that a conceptual similarity would be deemed to exist between the
Domain Name and the trademark.
ii.
Respondent proceeded to register a considerable number of domain
names, by combining the word "casino" with the name of a
country. The Panel finds that this pattern of conduct in registering
the domain names shows that Respondent registered the Domain
Name independently of Complainant’s trademark. In fact, there is
no evidence that Respondent knew of Complainant, of
Complainant’s trademark or of Complainant’s exclusive rights on
providing gambling services in the Princedom of Monaco.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent did not register the
Domain Name in bad faith.
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Case No. D2000-1320, Case No. D2000-1321, Case
No. D2000-1332
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1817. Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Étrangers à Monaco v. Javier
Llorens, Case No. D2000-1319
a.
Date:
December 13, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jacques A. Léger
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<casinomonaco.net>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s): It is the Panel’s opinion that the Domain Name registered
by the Respondent while as it may not be identical to the Complainant’s
trademark, it is nevertheless, by the ideas that it suggests, confusingly
similar to it. The "Casino" part of the Domain Name is identical to the first
term in its trademark, Casino de Monte-Carlo. The "monaco" part of the
Domain Name is confusingly similar to the third term of its trademark,
Casino de Monte-Carlo. The Panel believes that the substitution of the
51
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
term of the trademark, "Monte-Carlo", by the term "Monaco" in the
Domain Name "casinomonaco.net", does not suppress this strong
similarity between the two terms, as it is very common to use one or the
other term indifferently to designate the Principauté and thus, are
synonyms.
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited: None
Panel Decisions cited: Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas
and Christiandior.net Case No. D2000-0226; Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin,
Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. D20000163
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1818. Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Étrangers à Monaco v. Integroweb
(Bahamas) Ltd., Case No. D2000-1325
a.
Date: December 11, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jacques A. Léger
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<casino-of-montecarlo.com, casino-ofmonaco.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: LLS International vs. Mark Freeman, Case No.
D2000-1080; Altavista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Ltd., Case No.
D2000-0848; Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No.
D2000-0003; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and
Christiandior.net Case No. D2000-0226; Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin,
Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. D20000163
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1819. Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers de Monaco limited v
International Lotteries, Case No. D2000-1326
a.
Date:
January 8, 2001
b.
Panelist(s):
Francois Dessemontet
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<casinomontecarlo.com,
montecarlocasino.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
52
MIL2087.doc
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1820. Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Étrangers à Monaco v. Casino online, Case No. D2000-1329
a.
Date:
December 11, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jacques A. Léger
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<monacocasino.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: LLS International vs. Mark Freeman, Case No.
D2000-1080; Altavista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Ltd., Case No.
D2000-0848; Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No.
D2000-0003; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and
Christiandior.net Case No. D2000-0226; Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin,
Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. D20000163
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1821. La Société Anonyme des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco
v. Netrider, Case No. D2000-1330
a.
Date: December 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Benoit Van Asbroeck
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<Monaco-casino.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1822. Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Étrangers à Monaco v. World
Casino Company, Case No. D2000-1331
a.
Date: December 11, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jacques A. Léger
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<monacocasino.net>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: LLS International vs. Mark Freeman, Case No.
D2000-1080; Altavista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Ltd., Case No.
53
MIL2087.doc
j.
D2000-0848; Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No.
D2000-0003; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and
Christiandior.net Case No. D2000-0226; Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin,
Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. D20000163
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1823. Société Des Bains De Mer Et Du Cercle Des Étrangers À Monaco V. Global
Productions - Domain For Sale, Case No. D2000-1332
a.
Date:
December 13, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jacques A. Léger
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<monacogambling.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s): The substitution of "casino" by "gambling" in the
Respondent's Domain Name does not erase the strong similarity that exists
with the Complainant's trademark, as "gambling" directly refers to the
casino and gaming industries. When it is associated with "Monaco", it
necessarily induces, for the public, the Casino of Monte-Carlo, over which
the Complainant has a monopoly and is consequently the sole company
that can organise games and gambling in Monaco.
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM Case No.
D2000-0403; LLS International vs. Mark Freeman, Case No. D20001080; Altavista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Ltd., Case No. D20000848; Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D20000003; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and
Christiandior.net Case No. D2000-0226; Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin,
Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. D20000163
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1824 Société de Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco limited v
Piranha Interactive Ltd, Case No. D2000-1333
a.
Date:
December 18, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Francois Dessemontet, Clive Thorne, Olivier Iteanu
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<montecarlocasino.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
54
MIL2087.doc
1825. A. H. Belo Corporation v King TV and 5 Kings, Case No. D2000-1336
a.
Date:
December 5, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Ross Carson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<king5news.com, king5tv.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, ICANN Case
No. D2000-0624
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1826. Microsoft Corporation v. Cupcake Patrol, Case No. D2000-1344
a.
Date:
December 10, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard W. Page
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<encartaencyclopedia.com, encata.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Stella D’Oro Biscuit Co., Inc. v. The Patron Group,
Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0012; Nabisco Brands Co. v. The Patron
Group, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0032; J.P. Morgan v. Resource
Marketing, WIPO Case No. D2000-0035; Parfums Christian Dior v. 1
Netpower, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0022; Telstra Corporation
Limited v. Nuclear Marshmellows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: 15 U.S.C. § 1115
1827. Microsoft Corporation v. Bio Corp., a/k/a J. Stowell, Case No. D2000-1345
a.
Date:
December 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
M. Scott Donahey
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<mechcommander2.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: 3636275 Canada, dba eResolution v.
eResolution.com, ICANN Case No. D2000-0110; Document Technologies,
Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., ICANN Case No.
D2000-0270; Hitachi, Ltd. v. Fortune Int. Develop. Ent. Co. Lim., ICANN
Case No. D2000-0412. Wagg, Inc. v. 1070903 Ontario Limited, ICANN
Case No. AF-0205; Ronson plc v. Unimetal Sanayai ve Tic.A.S., Retail
Florist's Business, ICANN Case No. D2000-0011; Parfums Christian
55
MIL2087.doc
j.
Dior v. QTR Corporation, ICANN Case No. D2000-0023; World
Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, ICANN Case No. D99-0001; CBS
Broadcasting, Inc. v. Gaddoor Saidi, ICANN Case No. D2000-0243;
Home Director, Inc. v. HomeDirector, ICANN Case No. D2000-0111.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1828. Club Méditerranée v. Yosi Hasidim, Case No. D2000-1350
a.
Date:
December 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Thomas H. Webster
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<club-med.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group, Case No.
D2000-0413; SeekAmerica Networks Inc v. Tariq Masood and Solo Signs,
Case No. 2000-0131; BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co KG v. Paul Tweed,
Case No. 2000-0418; Nabisco Brands Company v. The Patron Group,
Inc., Case No. 2000-0032.
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1829. The Football Association Limited v. UKIP (Internet Consultants) Limited,
Case No. D2000-1359
a.
Date:
December 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gordon D Harris
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<facup.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1830. Thomas Cook Holdings Limited v. Neil Tucker, Case No. D2000-1360
a.
Date:
December 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Christopher Tootal
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<jmcairline.com, jmc-airline.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Case No. D2000-0804; Case No. D2000-0805;
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
56
MIL2087.doc
1831. America Online, Inc. v. Domain For Sale – VMI, Case No. D2000-1363
a.
Date:
December 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gaynell C. Methvin
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<aol-receive-instakiss.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1832. ARTISTdirect, Inc. v. OLDGlory.com, Case No. D2000-1367
a.
Date:
December 18, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Dennis A. Foster, Kevin H. Fortin, Jeffrey M. Samuels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<artistsdirect.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Sporoptic Pouilloux S.A. v. William H. Wilson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0265; Chernow Communications v. Kimball,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0119; Mondich and American Wine Biscuits, Inc.
v. Brown, WIPO Case No. D2000-0004
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1833. EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns and Matt Oettinger, Case No. D2000-1368
a.
Date:
December 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jeffrey H. Kaufman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<eebay.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol, National
Arbitration Forum No. FA0007000095105; International Data Group,
Inc. v. Maruyama & Co., Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2000-0420; Nintendo of
America, Inc. v. Daniel Lopez dba Creative Strategies, WIPO Case No.
D2000-1166; Nike, Inc. v. Farrukh Zia, WIPO Case No. D2000-0167.
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1834. America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu, Case No. D2000-1374
a.
Date:
December 11, 2000
57
MIL2087.doc
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Panelist(s):
Hugues G. Richard
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<icq520.com, icq502.com>
Response?: No
Principle(s):
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
Uniform Rules cited: None
Panel Decisions cited: AT&T Corp. v. Tala Alamuddin, Case No. D20000249, Caterpillar Inc. v. Roam the Planet, Ltd., Case No. D2000-0275,
shopping24 Gesellschaft für multimediale Anwendungen mbH v. Christian
Rommel, Case No. D2000-0508, Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities v. Cupcakes,
Cupcake city, Cupcake Confidential, Cupcake-Party, Cupcake Parade,
and John Zuccarini, Case No. D2000-0777; America Online Inc. v.
Shenzhen JZT Computer Software Co. Ltd, Case No. D2000-0809;
Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net
Case No. D2000-0226 and Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en
1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. D2000-0163.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1835. Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation, Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna & Figli
S.p.A., Consitex S.A v. Steven Shiekman, Case No. D2000-1375
a.
Date:
December 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Fabio Angelini, M Nicolas Ulmer, Paul Michael DeCicco
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<zegnasuit.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 10, 14, 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Pomellato S.p.A v. Richard Tonetti, Case No. D
2000-0493; General Electric Company v. John Bakhit, Case D2000-0386;
Corneliani F.lli Claudio e Carlalberto Corneliani S.p.A. v. Corantos s.r.l.,
Case No. D2000-0759; Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., Case
No. D2000-0022
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1836. Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. Alex Foresman, Case No. D2000-1380
a.
Date:
December 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jeffrey M. Samuels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<sgisystems.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
58
MIL2087.doc
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1837. The London Metal Exchange Limited v. Syed Hussain, Case No. D2000-1388
a.
Date:
December 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Sir Ian Barker
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<lmeholdings.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1838. Open Systems Computing AS v. Alberto degli Alessandri, Case
No. D2000-1393
a.
Date:
December 11, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Knud Wallberg
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<openit.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s): It is uncontested that the domain name was registered in
1997, i.e. before the application and commencement of use of the
trademark OpenIt. This is in itself an indication that bad faith is not
present. In addition, the trademark has apparently only been used in the
US and no evidence has been furnished to prove that the mark is well
known or just known in other countries including in the home country of
the Registrant (Respondent). From the facts of the case is seems clear that
it was the Complainant who approached Respondent and asked to sell the
domain name. The fact that when approached by someone you are in
principle willing to discuss sale of a domain name does not in itself
constitute bad faith.
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Case D2000-0005, Case D2000-0089, Case D20000104
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1839. Adamovske Strojirny v Tatu Rautiainen, Case No. D2000-1394
a.
Date:
December 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gerd F. Kunze
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<adast.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s): The domain name "adast.com" is not identical with marks
of the Complainant, but consists of the word, which is their main
identifying element. The graphic symbol, which is a part of the
59
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Complainant's mark, cannot be pronounced and the terms "dominant" and
"maxima", which are part of the trademarks ADAST dominant and
ADAST maxima, are descriptive. Whilst the word ADAST has been
created as a combination of the first three letters of the word
"ADAMOVSKE" and the first two letters of the word "STROJIRNY", it is
clearly a coined word with no meaning and therefore inherently
distinctive. This is particularly true for the Finnish language, but also for
e.g. English, French or German. The Complainant has submitted the
results of a trademark search in the trademark register in Finland, which
show that the word ADAST is exclusively registered by the Complainant.
Consequently no third person has trademark rights in that word.
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited: 15
Panel Decisions cited: None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1840. Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, Case No. D2000-1397
a.
Date:
December 21, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Hugues G. Richard
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<nike-shoes.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Cases D2000-0108, D2000-0167, D2000-1120;
Telstra Corp., Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows., Case N° D2000-0003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1841. Arab Bank for Investment and Foreign Trade v. Sabah Mahmoud Akkou,
Case No. D2000-1399
a.
Date:
December 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Mohamed-Hossam Loutfi
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<arbift.org, arbift.net>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Names transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Case No. D2000-0431; D2000-0003; D2000- 0442;
D2000-0135; D2000-0429; D2000-0022; D2000-0023
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
60
MIL2087.doc
1842. Arab Bank for Investment And Foreign Trade (ARBIFT) v. Mr. Kenn
Wagenheim / 07@usa.net, Case No. D2000-1400
a.
Date:
December 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Mohamed-Hossam Loutfi
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<arbift.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Names transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Case No. D2000-0431; D2000-0003; D2000- 0442;
D2000-0135; D2000-0429; D2000-0022; D2000-0023
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1843. BSA v. Paul Tweed, Case No. D2000-1401
a.
Date:
December 11, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Thomas H. Webster
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<bridel.com, lanquetot.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Names transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group, Case No.
D2000-0413; BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co KG v. Paul Tweed, Case No.
2000-0418; Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D20000003; Metabolife International v. Robert Williams, Case No. D2000-0630
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1844. CTV Television Inc. v. ICANADA CO, Case No. D2000-1407
a.
Date:
December 13, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Howard P. Knopf
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<www-ctv.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 10, 12, 14(b), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Case No. D2000-0115; Case No. D2000-0335;
D2000-0119; D2000-0004; D2000-0231; D2000-0336; D2000-0115;
D2000-0566; D2000-0703; D2000-0026; D2000-0423; D2000-0377;
D2000-1274; D2000-1271; D2000-1240; D2000-0594; D2000-0256;
D2000-0441; D2000-0594; D2000-0007; D2000-0011; D2000-0407;
D2000-0243
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Canadian Trade-marks Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. T-13, as amended, s. 50; Bell Actimedia Inc. v. Puzo, (1999) 2
61
MIL2087.doc
C.P.R. (4th) 289 (Federal Court Trial Division); United Artists Corp. v.
Pink Panther Beauty Corp. (1998), 80 C.P.R. (3d) 247 (Federal Court of
Appeal); Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (a.t.a. Toyota Motor Corp.) v.
Lexus Foods Inc., (2000) F.C.J. No. 1890, Docket A-622-99 (November
20, 2000) Federal Court of Appeal.
1845. Em@ilco International B.V. v. Erik Krols, Case No. D2000-1416
a.
Date:
December 18, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Petter Rindforth
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<emailco.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Case No D2000-0638
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1846. ITT Industries, Inc. v Katherine Kliszcz, Case No. D2000-1431
a.
Date:
December 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Staniforth Ricketson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<marlowpumps.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows
Case D 2000-0003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1847. Viacom International Inc. and MTV Networks Europe v. Rattan Singh
Mahon, Case No. D2000-1440
a.
Date:
December 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Andrew F. Christie
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<mtvbase.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
62
MIL2087.doc
1848. Viacom International Inc. and MTV Networks Europe v. Chamandeep
Singh, Case No. D2000-1441
a.
Date:
December 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Andrew F. Christie
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<mtvextra.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Case D2000-1440;
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1849. EBAY, Inc. v. LivingSprings2000, a business entity form unknown and
Martin Lewis, an individual, d/b/a LivingSprings2000, Case No. D2000-1444
a.
Date:
December 23, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David Everett Wagoner, Frederick M. Abbott, Joan Clark
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<ebayrus.com, ebayrus.net, ebayrus.org>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Names transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: D2000-0127; D2000-0003
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1850. AT&T Corp. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., Case No. D2000-1447
a.
Date:
December 23, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Edward C. Chiasson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<attt.net>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Microsoft Corp. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., Case No.
D2000-0554; Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441; Accu
Weather, Inc. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., National Arbitration Forum, File
No. FA0004000094645; and Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities v. Data Art Corp.,
DataArt Enterprises, Inc., Stonybrook Investments, Global Net 2000, Inc.,
Powerclick, Inc. and Yahoo Search, Inc., D2000-0587.
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil
Co., 229 F.2d 37, 108 USPQ 161 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 973,
109 USPQ 517 (1956).
63
MIL2087.doc
1851. Texas Instruments Incorporated v. DM, Case No. D2000-1448
a.
Date:
December 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gordon D Harris
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<"texas-instruments.com", "texasinstruments.net", "texas-instruments.org", "texasinstruments.net">
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1852. United Feature Syndicate, Inc. v. Mr. John Zuccarini, Case No. D2000-1449
a.
Date:
December 29, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Marylee Jenkins
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<dillbert.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and A & F
Trademark, Inc. v. John Zuccarini d/b/a Cupcake Patrol, WIPO Case No.
D2000-1004; Microsoft Corporation v. Cupcake City, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0818; Budget Rent a Car Corporation v. Cupcake City, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1020; Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities v. Cupcakes, Cupcake
City, Cupcake Confidential, Cupcake-Party, Cupcake Parade, and John
Zuccarini, Case No. D2000-0777; Yahoo!, Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol and
John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2000-0928; Dow Jones & Company,
Inc. and Dow Jones LP v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2000-0578;
Diageo p.l.c. v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2000-0541.
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Shields v. Zuccarini, 89 F. Supp.2d
at 640
1853. Liberty plc .v. Liberty Information Network, Case No. D2000-1454
a.
Date:
December 21, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
David Perkins
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<liberty.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
64
MIL2087.doc
1854. David Gilmour, David Gilmour Music Limited and David Gilmour Music
Overseas Limited v. Ermanno Cenicolla, Case No. D2000-1459
a.
Date:
December 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Alan L Limbury
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<davidgilmour.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear
Marshmallows, (D2000-0003); Barney’s, Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board
(D2000-0059); CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen (D2000-0400);
Video Networks Limited v. Larry Joe King (D2000-0487); Recordati
S.P.A. v. Domain Name Clearing Company (D2000-0194) and Revlon
Consumer Products Corporation v. Yoram Yosef aka Joe Goldman
(D2000-0468); SportSoft Golf, Inc. v. Hale Irwin’s Golfers’ Passport
(FA94956); Marriott International, Inc. v. John Marriot (FA94737);
Canada Inc. v. Sandro Ursino (AF-0211) and Centeon L.L.C./Aventis
Behring L.L.C. v. Ebiotech.com (FA95037); Cedar Trade Associates, Inc.,
v. Gregg Ricks (NAF93633); Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Steven S.
Lafwani (D2000-0014); SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Tariq Masood
(D2000-0131) and Passion Group Inc. v. Usearch, Inc. (AF-0250); Julia
Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd (D2000-0210); Jeanette Winterson v. Mark
Hogarth (D2000-0235); Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Bill Keith (D20000299); Steven Rattner v. BuyThisDomainName (John Pepin) (D20000402); Estate of Stanley Getz aka Stan Getz v. Peter Vogel (D2000-0773);
Daniel C. Marino, Jr. v. Video Images Productions, et al. (D2000-0598);
Isabelle Adjani v. Second Orbit Communications, Inc.(D2000-0867); MPL
Communications Limited v. Denny Hammerton (NAF95633); Madonna
Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com"(D20000847); Nik Carter v. The Afternoon Fiasco (D2000-0658); Pierre van
Hooijdonk v. S.B. Tait (D2000-1068); Frederick M. Nicholas,
Administrator, The Sam Francis Estate v. Magidson Fine Art, Inc.
(D2000-0673); Jaap Stam v. Oliver Cohen (D2000-1061); Helen Folsade
Adu known as Sade v. Quantum Computer Services Inc. (D2000-0794);
Michael J. Feinstein v. PAWS Video Productions (D2000-0880) and
Estate of Tupac Shakur v. Shakur Info Page (AF-0346); Gordon Sumner,
p/k/a Sting v. Micheal Urvan (D2000-0596), Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a
Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com"(D2000-0847); Monty and
Pat Roberts, Inc. v. Bill Keith (D2000-0299).
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Erven Warnink BV v. J Townend
(Hull) Ltd, [1979] AC 731 (House of Lords); Hornsby Building
Information Centre Pty Ltd v. Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd
65
MIL2087.doc
(1978) 140 CLR 216 (High Court of Australia); Cadbury Schweppes Pty
Ltd v. Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 851(Privy Council).
1855. Juventus F.C. S.p.a. v. Sergio Bragança, Case No. D2000-1466
a.
Date:
December 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Christophe Imhoos
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<juvestore.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Deutsche Bank AG vs. Carl Seigler, Case No.
D2000-0984
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1856. Marty Rodriguez Real Estate, Inc. v. Lancaster Industries, Case
No. D2000-1468
a.
Date:
December 24, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard W. Page
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<martyrodriguez.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Steven Rattner v. BuyThis Domain Name, (WIPO
D2000-0402); Jeanette Winterson v. Mark Hogarth, (WIPO D2000-0235);
Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd, (WIPO D2000-0210); Ziegenfelder
Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc., (WIPO D2000-0039)
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Adray v. Adray-Aart, Inc., 68 F.3d
362 (9th Cir. 1995), amended on other grounds, 76 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.
1996); Visser v. Macrese et al., 214 Cal. App. 2d 249, 253, 29 Cal. Rptr.
367, 369 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 4th 1963); see also, Levis Strauss & Co. v.
Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). Paco Sport,
Ltd. v. Paco Rabanne Parfums, 86 F.Supp.2d 305, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
(quoting Centaur Communications, Ltd. v. A/S/M Communications, Inc.,
830 F.2d 1217, 1222 (2d. Cir. 1987).
1857. The Professional Golfers' Association of America v. Domainanalyst.Com,
I.G. Communication Inc., and Youngchul Chang, Case No. D2000-1469
a.
Date:
January 8, 2001
b.
Panelist(s):
Clive N. A. Trotman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<"pgaweb.com", "pgainfo.com",
"pgaopen.org", "pgaopen>
d.
Response?: No
66
MIL2087.doc
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Principle(s):
Result:
Name transfer
Policy cited: 3(c), 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(c), 4(i)
Uniform Rules cited: 15
Panel Decisions cited: Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities v. Cupcakes, Cupcake
City, Cupcake Confidential, Cupcake-Party, Cupcake Parade and John
Zuccarini, Case. No. D2000-0777.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1858. The Thread.com, LLC v. Jeffrey S. Poploff, Case No. D2000-1470
a.
Date:
January 5, 2001
b.
Panelist(s):
David H. Bernstein
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<thethread.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
i.
“…if a party believes that additional submissions are warranted, it
should not simply file them with the Center; rather, the better
practice is to seek consent from the Panel, with an explanation of
why a supplemental submission is warranted.”
ii.
To invoke the Policy, a Complainant must show that the domain
name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which
the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent lacks rights or a
legitimate interest in the domain name, and that the Respondent
registered and used the name in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(a). To attempt
to shoehorn what is essentially a business dispute between former
partners into a proceeding to adjudicate cybersquatting is, at its
core, misguided, if not a misuse of the Policy. This alone is
enough to justify denial of the Complaint.
f.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 12
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Pet Warehouse v. Pets.Com, Inc., Case No. D20000105; Plaza Operating Partners, Ltd. v. Pop Data Technologies, Inc. and
Joseph Pillus, Case No. D2000-0166; Document Technologies, Inc. v.
International Electronic Communications, Inc., Case No. D2000-0270;
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. G.A.B. Enterprises, Case No. D2000-0416;
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, Case No.
D2000-0662; Parfums Christian Dior S.A. v. Jadore, Case No. D20000938; Unibanco - União de Bancos Brasileiros S.A. v. Vendo Domain
Sale, Case No. D2000-0671; CRS Technology Corp. v. CondeNet, Inc.,
File No. FA0002000093547; Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line,
No. D2000-1151; Latent Technology Group, Inc. v. Bryan Fitchie, File
No. FA0007000095285; PairGain Technologies, Inc. v. Michael
Centrella, File No. FA0003000094292; Hankison International v.
Hankisoninternational.com, File No. FA0004000094393; Westfield Corp.
v. Graeme Michael Hobbs, Case No. D2000-0227.
67
MIL2087.doc
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1859. NIKE, Inc. v. Jaeik Jung, Case No. D2000-1471
a.
Date:
December 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Dan Hunter
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<nikeeurope.com, nike-europe.com,
nikeurope.com, euronike.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Names transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(b)(i)-(iv), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lars Stork, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0628; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0713; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Yongsoo Hwang, NOWALMART and NO-WALMART.COM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0838;
AltaVista Company v. S.M.A., Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0927; Yahoo!
Inc. v. Microbiz, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1050; Viacom International
Inc. v Sung Wook Choi and M Production, WIPO Case No. D2000-1114;
Jefferson Smurfit Group, plc. v. Stephen Davidson, Inc., WIPO Case No.
D2000-1117; Amway Corporation, Inc. v. Business Internet Connection
and Rex Mehta, WIPO Case No. D2000-1118.
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1860. Internet Initiative Japan Inc. v. Win System Co., Ltd., Case
No. D2000-1485
a.
Date:
January 9, 2001
b.
Panelist(s):
Teruo Doi
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<iij4u.com>
d.
Response?: Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1861 Palm, Inc. –v- South China House of Technology Consultants Ltd., Case
No. D2000-1492
a.
Date:
December 18, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Tony Willoughby
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<palmax.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s): All in all the Panel concludes that this dispute is a trade
mark infringement and/or passing off dispute more appropriate to the
68
MIL2087.doc
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Courts than to the Policy. The Panel cannot categorise it as a case of
cybersquatting.
Result:
Decision for Respondent
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(c)
Uniform Rules cited: None
Panel Decisions cited: None
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1862. Mövenpick Holding AG v. Olive Tree Products, Case No. D2000-1540
a.
Date:
December 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Bridgeman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<movenpickhotels.com>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
1863. TELEVISION FRANCAISE 1 v. Julienne (Technologies Futures 1), Case
No. D2000-1589
a.
Date:
December 21, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Isabelle Leroux
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
<tf1.net>
d.
Response?: No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result:
Name transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)(i)-(iii), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: D2000-0003, D2000-0055, D2000-0098
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
69
MIL2087.doc