Monday, June 17, 2013


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

The Registrant (MC Motorsports Canada Ltd.) responded to the Complaint. The Complainant argued it became the exclusive distributor of CLEVELAND CYCLEWERKS branded motorcycles, parts and accessories in April 2011 (culminated by a License Agreement dated April 1, 2012).  However, the Registrant argued it had a prior existing relationship with the licensor of CLEVELAND CYCLEWERKS branded motorcycles, parts and accessories, and provided e-mails from the CLEVELAND CYCLEWERKS Licensor authorizing the registration of the Domain Name and confirmation of its ownership thereof.  The Panel did not find the Registrant registered the Domain Name in bad faith, especially in light of the fact that the text on the web site explicitly states the Registrant is no longer associated with the Licensor. Of note: The Registrant included an application requesting that the Panel exercise their authority and grant costs.  The Registrant argued that the dispute was a business dispute rather than cyber-squatting, the Complainant misrepresented the relationship between the parties, and the Complainants recital of facts were wholly inaccurate, amongst other things.  The Panel agreed with the Registrant and ordered $5,000.00 in costs.  

You can read the decision here

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

#231 -, and - TRANSFER GRANTED

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

The registrant (DS1 Design) did not respond to the Complaint. General Motors LLC is a well-known automotive manufacturing company.  The Complainant owns hundreds of BUICK, CHEVROLET and CADILLAC trade-marks.  The earliest of the BUICK, CHEVROLET and CADILLAC trade-marks were registered in Canada in 1926, 1941 and 1926, respectively.  The Domain Names were confusingly similar because the addition of the words ‘certified’ and ‘service’ are likely to be associated with motor vehicles and do not distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant’s trade-marks. The Panelist found that the multiple Domain Names were registered in bad faith because the three registrations constituted a pattern of abusive registrations.