Monday, October 29, 2012


The Complainant established its case and the panelist therefore directed the transfer of to the Complainant. 

The registrant (David Allsebrook) did not respond to the Complaint. ND Graphics Inc. is an online supplier of equipment and material for the sign and imaging industry.  The ND GRAPHICS trade-mark was registered in Canada in 1991, but used as early as 1983.  The Registrant’s Domain Name was being used to redirect visitors to the Registrant’s own business, The Domain Name was registered in May, 2012.  In July, 2012, the Registrant contacted the Complainant in order to purchase a printer and invited the sales representative of ND Graphics to visit the Domain Name. A cease and desist letter was served immediately thereafter and the Registrant offered to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for $150,000.00.  As part of its bad-faith analysis, the panel found that the registrant did business with ND Graphics and therefore knew about their name and trade-mark.  They also found that linking the Domain Name to the Registrant’s own business suggests mischievous intent.  Lastly, the $150,000.00 offer suggests that the Registrant’s only motive was to ransom the Domain Name to the Complainant.    

You can read the decision here.

Monday, October 22, 2012


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

Cheap Monday is a famous brand in the fashion industry with stores in over 35 countries.  The Complainant, Weekday Brands AB, registered the CHEAP MONDAY trademark in Canada on 5 October 2009. Although the Registrant did not respond, the evidence showed that its domain was registered on August 2, 2012. The Registrant's web site could be described as a "parking-page" that contained advertisements for various services and products. The Panelist indicated that he found the domain name to be confusing for a number of reasons, including that the Registrant attempted a "cyber-flight" by transferring the Domain Name in the face of possible action by the Complainant and therefore depriving the Complainant (and Panel) of information that would otherwise be available in the WHOIS database. Also, the Panelist specified that "pay-per-click" models are not illegitimate business models, but the Website's confusing and illegitimate association to a famous brand to attract users was not bona fide constituting a legitimate interest.

You can read the decision here.