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 notable.ca 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)