Thursday, October 24, 2013


The Domain Name in issue in this proceeding is <>, registered on October 14, 2012. The Complainant is a US limousine company, which operates under its CAREY trademark which was registered in 1994.

The Panel found that the Registrant registered the domain name in bad faith since the disputed domain name was an almost exact duplication of the Complainant's web site but was designed to compete with the Complainant. The Panel further found that the Registrant had a pattern of registering domain names using the CAREY trademark despite previously issued court orders and UDRP proceedings.

The panel found that the Registrant had no legitimate interest in the mark since, apart from the litigation over the domain, there has never been any relationship between the Complainant and the Registrant, and the Registrant has never been licensed, or otherwise authorized to register or use, the CAREY trade-mark in any manner whatsoever.

You can read the decision here.

Friday, October 18, 2013


The Complainant produces medical marihuana under the name CANNIMED, a trade-mark registered on August 6, 2004 that has since become closely associated with the complainant, the sole supplier of medical marijuana in Canada. “” was registered on December 20, 2010.  Since approximately July, 2012, the Domain Name had been used to direct visitors to a website which advertises itself as a seller of medical marijuana.

The complainant alleged that the Domain Name was confusingly similar to its mark. The panel noted that despite differences in spellings, Domain Names can be found to be confusingly . In this case, since the Domain Name both looked and sounded similar, it was confusing.

The Panel found that, since visitors to the Domain Name were referred to a web page where medical marihuana was offered for sale, a reasonable inference could be made that the Registrant registered the domain name to direct internet users to the Registrant’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain.

The Panel further found that, by using the Domain Name to sell products which are the same as those being sold by the Complainant in association with its trade-mark, the Registrant demonstrated a lack of good faith.   

You can read the decision here.

Friday, October 4, 2013


The Complainant (American Girl, LLC - a wholly owned subsidiary of Mattel, Inc.) has operated the website since 1997 and owned the trade-mark AMERICAN GIRL since 1986. The disputed website, registered in 2004, led to a pay per click site with sponsored links to competitors of the Complainant.

Previously, the Complainant filed a CDRP Complaint against this same Registrant but the panelist in that case found that the Complainant had failed to demonstrate that the Registrant had no legitimate interest in the domain. The Registrant then brought this second complaint. The Panel held that the Complainant could bring a complaint regarding the same domain name because the claim was not brought to harass the Registrant and because the complainant provided substantial new evidence concerning the Registrant's activities.

The Panel found that the Complainant has rights in the Mark which predate the registration of the Domain. The Panel further found that the Complainant had no legitimate interest in the Mark – recently resolving the Domain Name to a Facebook account was a transparent attempt to legitimize the Domain Name. Regarding the bad faith requirement, the Panel noted that the Domain Name initially had a notice on the website offering it for sale, which the panel found met the bad faith requirement under section 3.5(a).  The Panel also found it was likely that the Registrant chose the Domain Name based on the confusion it would cause the public in an attempt profit financially.

You can read the decision here.