Thursday, July 18, 2013

#234 -,, et al.- TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panel transferred the domain names to the Complainant.

The Complainant is Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA, LLC, the owner of the NATIONAL and ALAMO trade-marks, used in Canada in association with automobile renting services. The Complainant has used the NATIONAL trade-mark in Canada since 1950 and the ALAMO trade-mark in Canada since 1998. The Registrant registered the disputed Domain Names on February 15, 2012 and did not respond to this Complaint. Of note: the panelist found that the Domain Names were registered in bad faith partly because the web sites were disrupting the business of the Complainant - a section of the web sites were dedicated to links to the Complainant’s competitors.  

You can read the decision here

Monday, July 15, 2013


Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP represented Oakley Inc. and was successful in transferring the Domain Names (OAKLEYSUNGLASSESFORSALE.CA, OAKLEYSUNGLASSESSTORE.CA, OAKLEYSUNGLASSESCHEAP.CA) to their rightful owner, Oakley Inc.

The Complainant is Oakley Inc., a very well-known manufacturer of sunglasses and other apparel. Oakley's uses a large portfolio of trademarks in Canada and spends significant monies promoting their brand through various advertising mediums. The Registrant in China registered the domain names on June 5, 2012 and the Complainant filed its complaint on May 22, 2013. The Registrant did not respond. Of particular interest in this Complaint was the panelist's helpful comments regarding the confusingly similar domains/web sites that sell counterfeit merchandise. 

You can read the full decision here

Thursday, July 4, 2013


The Complainant is William KO of Burnaby, British Columbia and the Registrant is Warren Glenn of Toronto, Ontario. The Registrant did not file a response to the Complaint that was made on May 1, 2013. The Complainant did not assert any trade-mark rights in and to the Domain Name. The Complaint as drafted stated that the Registrant’s Domain Name expired and the Complainant alleges it subsequently acquired the rights to the Domain when it “paid for and registered” the Domain Name. Adding to the confusion was the fact that the Registrant likely renewed its Domain Name during the grace-period that followed the expiry of the Domain. The Panelist rightly held that this case was not properly suited for the policy as the Complaint was not an instance of cyber-squatting involving the misappropriation of trade-mark rights.

You can read the decision here.