Thursday, January 31, 2019


The Complainant, Penske Truck Leasing Co., states that it’s licensed to use the PENSKE family of trademarks, owned by its “affiliate companies”. However, the Complaint was dismissed, because the trademarks are owned by Penske System, Inc., and therefore the Complainant is not an eligible complainant because it did not assert any other arguments as to eligibility.

You can read the decision here.

Friday, January 11, 2019


The Complainant is one of Canada's largest light and medium oil producers in Alberta, and has used its CRESCENT POINT family of trademarks since 2002.  The Registrant allegedly injured himself in the past while working for a third party contractor on one of the Complainant's well sites.  The Domain Name (including a .co domain which was later transferred to the Complainant) was registered by the Registrant, likely to express his grievances to the Complainant. Additionally, the Registrant registered several domain names belonging to public Canadian oil and gas companies, including, and

The Registrant did not respond to the Complaint, and the Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith, in part, because the Panel accepted the Complainant's allegation that the Registrant admitted he registered the Domain Name following the alleged injury he suffered (expressed during a telephone call to the Complainant).

You can read the decision here.

Tuesday, January 8, 2019


The Complainant owns the LIVEJASMIN trademark, registered in Canada for use in association with online adult entertainment services. Additionally, the Complainant  has extensively used its trademark for several years, and its website has over ten million visitors per day.  The Registrant responded to the Complaint, and alleges that the Complainant has known about the website for years, and following a verbal agreement twelve years ago, has shared profits from the website. 

The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.  Although the Registrant subscribed to the Complainant's affiliate program, it breached the terms by using the Complainant's mark without permission, and the Registrant is now using the website by openly promoting erroneous information, with user comments posted.

You can read the decision here.

Wednesday, December 5, 2018


The parties settled the dispute, and CIRA posted the correspondence from both the Complainant and Registrant's counsel confirming the Registrant's approval to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant.


The Complainant owns the PANAVISION family of trademarks, and is one of the world's most recognized providers of ultra-precision digital imaging and visual cinematographic equipment and other accessories for the motion picture, television, and related industries. The Registrant is using the Domain Name as a pay-per-click site.  The Registrant filed a deficient response including a cover page, Registration certification and several blank pages. Despite an invitation to submit an amended complaint, he failed to do so.

The Panel held that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith by a serial cybersquatter, Daniel Mullen. The Complainant relied on the numerous unauthorized domain name decisions involving Mr. Mullen:,,,,,,, and

Interestingly, there was a dissenting opinion of James Plotkin.  He found that the Domain Name was not registered in bad faith because there is no evidence *in this case* that Daniel Mullen registered the Domain Name to prevent the Complainant from doing so. Additionally, he finds that the Panel should not rely on UDRP principles, and that no visitor to the website would think it was the Complainant's website or that the Complainant was affiliated with it. 

You can read the decision here.

Tuesday, November 13, 2018


The Complainant manufactures braking systems for vehicles using the KNORR-BREMSE trademark (registered in Canada and in use since 1975).  The Registrant purports to offer to sell goods belonging to the Complainant, and the Complainant's competitors.

The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the Registrant knew of the Complainant's mark, and was using the mark to bait users into making a purchase on the website, and then switching the products to Complainant's products.

Monday, November 5, 2018

#376 - - REFUSED

The Complainant owns the LUMILEDS registered trademark (registered after the date of the Domain Name registration) but alleges it commenced use in Canada since 2001.  The Registrant (based in Quebec) also uses the LUMILEDS trademark in Canada (he combined Lumiere (French translated word for Light) and LEDS (light emitting diode in plural), and started his business, Lumileds Inc., after he searched CIPO, and noticed that the Complainant had abandoned the LUMILEDS trademark in Canada.

The Complainant delivered a cease and desist letter, but the matter did not resolve between the parties. 

The Panel refused to decide whether the Registrant had a legitimate interest in the Domain (on the question of whether the legal name of the Registrant must exist at the time of the registration of the Domain Name – since it incorporated Lumileds Inc. after it registered the Domain Name).
Instead, the Panel found that the Domain Name was not registered in bad faith.  The Panel was unable to conclude that the Complainant had been using the mark as of the date of the Domain Name Registration (or that it asserted trademark rights prior to a later-dated 2014 LUMILEDS trademark application).  Additionally, the Panel found that the Registrant had a disclaimer on the site and, despite being competitors, arguably was not trying to drive traffic away from the Complainant’s business.  The Panel found that there are competing claims for trademark and domain name rights, which is outside the scope of a CDRP proceeding.

You can read the decision here.