Monday, December 17, 2012


The Complainant did not establish its case and the panelists therefore dismissed the Complaint. 

The registrant (Hiba Alnatour) responded to the Complaint. The Complainant asserts it has used the KAY JEWELERS and KAY trade-marks in Canada since 1999 to distinguish its provisions of jewelry retail services.    The Domain Name was not registered until February 16, 2011.  The Registrant, as a domain investor, acquired several three-letter generic Domain Names, including   The Complainant offered to purchase the Domain Name for the advertised bidding price of $2,500.00 but then received a counter-offer in the amount of $17,500.00.  The Complainant was unsuccessful because the panel found that persons in Canada would not confuse KAY JEWELERS with the Domain Name, which is a generic three-letter word.  The panel was not able to conclude that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.  The Registrant successfully argued that there are numerous KAY trade-mark registrations, and the Complainant does not even operate any retail stores in Canada.  

You can read the decision here

Wednesday, December 12, 2012


The Complainant established its case and the Panelists transferred the domain name to the Complainant.

The Registrant registered the domain name on August 4, 2009. The Complainant, Microsoft Corporation, was founded in 1975 and is a worldwide leader in software services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential. The Panelists concluded that the Domain Name GBING.CA was confusingly similar and that the Registrant had no legitimate interest in the Domain Name at all, despite the addition of the letter “G” in front of BING. As part of their bad faith analysis, the Panelists found that the Registrant was providing a competing internet search service using the whole of the Complainant’s BING trade-mark.  Further, the Registrant’s home page appears to copy Google’s use of different colours for each letter of GBING, generates ad revenue and has several click-through advertisements for some of Canada’s largest banks.   The panelists noted there are no applications or registrations for GBING or GBING.CA.  

You can read the decision here


The Complainant established its case and the Panelist transferred the domain name to the Complainant.

The Complainant and the Registrant had previously entered into a distribution agreement for the commercialization of a contraceptive product, NORLEVO. The agreement provided that upon its termination, the Registrant would cease all use of the NORLEVO trade-mark. The Registrant registered the Domain Name in 2006 and the agreement terminated in 2011. The Panelist held that the Domain Name was confusingly similar because it was comprised exclusively of the Complainant’s trade-mark “Norlevo”. In terms of bad faith, the Panelist referred to the agreement holding that the domain name should have been transferred to the Complainant upon its termination. Terminated licensee should not be permitted to leverage a licensor’s intellectual property with a view of extracting some sort of benefit. This cannot possibly be seen as a bona fide or good faith dealing with a domain name.'

You can read the decision here