Monday, February 19, 2018

#361 - mypillow.ca - COMPLAINT DENIED

The Complainant owns the MYPILLOW trademark registered since March, 2013 with a date of first use in Canada in January, 2008.  The Registrant registered in the Domain Name on March 2, 2010.  The Domain Name redirects users to the Registrant's primary business, www.ecoeteco.com (where the Registrant does sell pillows).  The Registrant states that she was unaware of the existence of the Complainant's mark, ignored the Complainant's cease and desist letter received two years ago and uses the site as a marketing tool to attract customers. 

The Panel found that the Registrant failed to submit evidence of use of MYPILLOW as a trademark prior the registration of the Domain Name.

The Panel further held that the Domain Name was not registered in bad faith because the mark is descriptive and the Registrant swore an affidavit confirming that she was unaware of the Domain Name at the time it was registered.

You can read the decision here.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

#360 - meetic.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED.

The Complainant is a leading online dating service in Europe, and owner of the MEETIC trademark registered in Canada since March 2007. The Domain name was registered in May, 2007. The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because it is points to a pay-per-click website and that the Registrant has a pattern of registering domain names using trademarks belonging to third parties (reference made to the twittr.com UDRP WIPO Case Number D2011-1992).

You can read the decision here.

#359 - desigual.com - TRANSFER GRANTED


The Complainant is the owner of the DESIGUAL design trademark registered in Canada in association with clothing since 1999. The Domain Name was registered in January, 2010 and the Registrant argues that DESIGUAL is generic and is Spanish for “uneven, unequal and one-sided”.  The Domain Name was hyperlinked to giftagreen.com, a business that appeared on Dragon’s Den and its tea products are sold in 500+ stores across Canada. Additionally, an offer to sell the Domain Name for $40,000.00 and on another occasion for $50,000.00 was not unsolicited.

The Panel found that the backwards ‘S’ in the Complainant’s design trademark does not alter the finding of confusion.  The Panel further held that the legitimacy of the giftagreen.com business is not in issue in the Complaint.  Additionally, the Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the Registrant used the DESIGUAL mark to hyperlink its site to giftagreen.com.

You can read the decision here.

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

kohlercanada.ca and kohlergeneratorscanada.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant, Kohler Co. has used the KOHLER trademark in Canada since 1873 in association with various household and commercial products including bathtubs.  The Registrant's website forwards users to firstpowergenerators.com, which offers generator products from the Complainant's competitor(s).  The Domain Names were not registered until June, 2016, long after the Complainant established trademarks registrations and in Canada.  The Panel found that the Domain Names were registered in bad faith because the Registrant's mark, FIRST POWER GENERATORS and the products on its site belong to competitors of the Complainant. 

You can read the decision here.

Monday, January 29, 2018

#357 - gthl.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Greater Toronto Hockey League was founded in 1911 and the Complainant owns the family of GTHL trademarks registered for use in association with youth ice hockey goods and services. The Registrant registered the Domain Name in 2004, operates a pay-per-click website, and did not respond to the Complaint.  The Complainant was able to establish common law trademark rights in GTHL prior to the 2004 registration of the Domain Name.  Additionally, the Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the Registrant registered sixty other Domain Names including trademarks belonging to other rights holders.

You can read the decision here.

Monday, January 22, 2018

#356 - chick-fil-a.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED


The Complainant is a quick-selling service restaurant in the chicken segment, and owner of the family of registered Canadian trademarks, CHICK-FIL-A.  The majority of the Complainant’s restaurants are in the United States however it does operate in Calgary, Alberta. The Registrant failed to submit a substantive response, but did offer to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant.

The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the passive holding of a Domain Name prevents the rights holder from registering its trademark as a Domain Name, and ignoring cease and desist letters strongly supports a finding of bad faith.

You can read the decision here

Monday, January 15, 2018

#355 - reginalutheranhome.ca and theedengroupofcompanies.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED


The Complainant, owner of the REGINA LUTHERAN HOME and EDEN CARE COMMUNITIES, used in Canada as early as 1963 and 2011, respectively. The Registrant registered the Domain Names in October, 2017.  The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was set up to disrupt the business of the Complainant and extort money from the Complainant.  The two parties are entrenched in a vicious dispute that has made its way to the local media and Police.  The Registrant is a council member of the Complainant’s business, and his wife its former chair person.  He alleges that the Domain Name was registered in good faith to criticize the business (including its mismanagement and finances) of the Complainant.  The web site directs visitors looking for the Complainant to its actual web site (by hyperlink).


The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.  The Panel analyzed whether the web site was registered for the purpose of valid criticism, and held that although some of the material on the web site is criticism, the material as a whole is not.  The Registrant appears to be fixated on a vendetta against the Complainant’s former CEO, and the material on the site lacks objectivity, and is therefore not within the meaning of criticism.  Additionally, in communication between the parties prior to the registration of the Domain Names, the Registrant did seek compensation (and an apology) from the Complainant and would have abandoned his “project”.


Interestingly, the Registrant sought its costs associated with responding to the Complaint, which was rejected because the Complaint was not brought in bad faith.

You can read the decision here