Wednesday, March 21, 2012

CDRP SUMMARY #181 - Glaxo Group Limited v. Steven Black

After being served with the Complaint, and despite contacting the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre and inquiring into possible ways to file a request for a deferral of his response, the Registrant (Steven Black) did not respond to the Complaint. The Domain Name was registered in 2010, well after the FLOVENT trade-mark was registered by the Complainant in 1995. The Domain Name was being offered for sale at a price of $500.00 (via the RegistrantÂ’s website). However, after service of a cease and desist letter, the Registrant balked and communicated via e-mail that he previously sold for $3,000.00, which he believed to be reasonable for a 7-letter domain. No offer was subsequently made. This case will assist rights-holders as the panelist found there was no evidence that the Registrant had any use for the Domain Name other than to sell it.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

CDRP SUMMARY #180 - Cointreau v. Netnic Corporation

The Registrant (Netnic Corporation) responded to the Complaint. The Complainant owns a number of trade-marks in Canada which include “COINTREAU” in word or word/logo form, including one that has been used in Canada as early as 1910 (in association with liquers). Prior to delivering the Complaint, the Complainant offered $350.00 to acquire the Domain Name and Mr. Mullen (representative of Netnic – not the Golden State Warrior) balked and thought 2,500 Euros was the “correct amount” [Note: he advised the Complainant he was negotiating on behalf of his unidentified customer]. This case will assist rights-holders given the panelists analysis of the bad faith requirements, including finding that Mr. Mullen is the public face/alter ego of the Registrant and has a pattern of abusive registrations.