#274 - optrex.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panelist transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant.

The Complainant owns the popular OPTREX trade-mark registered in 1937 in association with eye care products.  The Registrant is the notorious cyber-squatter Nameshield Inc. (Daniel Mullen).  The Registrant attempted to cloud the issues for the Panel by asserting that the Complainant was not actually the trade-mark owner and that he “cleared the name” for use in LCD display panels, amongst other things.  Not surprisingly the Registrant did not provide any support for his arguments.  The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the Domain Name was being used as a pay-per-click site at the time the Complaint was started, and the Registrant has been the subject of numerous UDRP/CDRP disputes and has engaged in a pattern of bad faith.

                                                                                                    

You can read the decision here.  

#273 - ice-watch.ca - REFUSED

The Complainant, ICE IP S.A, the owner of the ICE-WATCH trade-mark for use in association with watches, and the ice-watch.com Domain Name.  Although the Registrant responded, there were deficiencies which were not corrected and the decision was based on the Complainant’s materials only. Of note: the Complainant provided documents evidencing rights in the trade-mark prior to the Registrant’s registration which were not considered because the Panel decided this dispute on the basis of bad faith only, which was not proved. 

The Panel noted that there was an Agreement between the parties, and the Registrant was the previous distributor of the Complainant’s watches, and the breach of contract dispute between the parties was beyond the scope of the Complaint.  The Panel found that the e-mails exchanged between the parties disclosed that the Registrant likely registered the Domain Name in good faith and in the legitimate belief he would be the authorized distributor of the Complainant’s watches.  The Panel did not accept established UDRP case law refusing to allow Registrants to hold Domain Names ransom (after a falling out, for example) because the overall inquiry relates to the time of registration.  The Panel refused to acknowledge that the terms of the Agreement provided that the Domain Name transfers to the Complainant upon termination of the Agreement.

You can read the full decision here.

#272 - tdmobilebanking.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant, The Toronto-Dominion Bank is the second largest bank in Canada and owner of the TD trade-mark.  The Panel found that the Domain Name was confusingly similar to the TD mark, in part because the words mobile banking are descriptive and reinforce the likelihood of confusion.  The Panel found the Domain was registered in bad faith, because the web site prominently displayed the following text: “Would you like to buy this domain?” and large letters below: “ON SALE”.  The Panel inferred that it would be hard to imagine the sale transfer price would be lower than the relatively small registration fees.

You can read the decision here. 

#271 - asurion.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant is the owner of the ASURION trade-mark, and provides mobile protection insurance through mobile phone carriers.  The Domain Name is not a currently active web site. The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith, amongst other things, because the Registrant owned hundreds of domain names, at least 15 of which contained popular trade-marks previously registered by other parties.

You can read the decision here. 

#270 - pirellitire.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant, Pirelli & C.S.p.a., the owner of the popular PIRELLI trade-marks registered for use in association with tires, amongst other goods and services. The Registrant registered the Disputed Domain Names in October, 2013 long after the Complainant’s successful business was founded (in 1872). 

The Panel found that the Respondent had no legitimate interest in the Domain Names (pirelli-tire.ca, pirelli-tires.ca, pirellitire.ca, pneupirelli.ca and pneuspirelli.ca) which were being used as pay-per-click sites and all contained the PIRELLI trade-mark in its entirety along with other descriptive terms such as tires (and other language equivalents of tires). The Panel also found the Domain Names were registered in bad faith because the Registrant ought to have had actual and constructive knowledge of the PIRELLI trade-marks.

You can read the full decision here.

#269 - ontariouniversities.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant, the "Ontario Universities Application Centre" (OUAC), is the not-for-profit centralized Ontario university application centre. The Registrant registered the domain name at issue on 18 August 2010 and resolved to a "parking page" inviting a person to buy the domain name. OUAC, ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES, ONTARIO, and UNIVERSITIES' APPLICATION CENTRE are not registered trade marks.


The Panel found that even if the marks had acquired enough secondary meaning to be considered unregistered trade mark, "Ontario Universities" is comprised of two generic descriptive terms that had a much broader meaning than OUAC. The Panel found that the Domain Name was not confusingly similar with any acquired right of OUAC. The Panel refused to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking for filing this complaint even if done in "error".


You can read the full decision here.

#268 - grevin.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panelist transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant.

Note to Reader:  Decision was written in French and roughly translated to English for the purposes of this summary.  

Despite frequent travel to Montreal throughout my life, I never heard of Musee Grevin Montreal Inc., the Complainant.  A quick visit to the web site opened my eyes to the impressive wax museum in Montreal with over 120 sculptures of famous French personalities.  Despite (1) not owning a registered trade-mark (2) not being the same company that owns the CAFÉ GREVIN design trade-mark (presumably owned by its parent/affiliated company in France), and (3) not owning the grevin.com domain name - the Complaint established rights in the GREVIN mark prior to the date the Domain Name was registered.  The Panel held that the registering and then forwarding of the Domain Name to a web site with archived information attempting to discredit the Complainant’s business was clearly done in bad faith.  Further, the Registrant was attempting to sell the Domain Name for $11,298.60 which was much higher than the cost of registration.  

You can read the decision here.  

amazonfirephone.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panelists transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant.

 

The Complainant, Amazon Technologies, Inc. owns the highly popular AMAZON trade-mark in Canada, and markets a number of Amazon Kindle Fire devices in Canada.  The Registrant “shi lei” registered the Domain Name on April 6, 2014.  The Complainant also owns the AMAZON FIRE trade-mark application in Canada and registered the amazonfire.com domain name on April 17, 2002.  The Panel held that the addition of the generic term FIRE increases the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade-mark – especially in light of the timing of the Domain Name registration (after an Amazon media release regarding Amazon Fire TV products and Amazon phones).  The Panel further held that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith despite the passive holding of the Domain Name – especially in light of the popularity of the Complainant’s trade-mark.                                                                                                

You can read the decision here.  

#266 - dixie.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant, Dixie Consumer Products LLC, is one of the world's most widely recognized manufacturers of paper cups, plates, cutlery, etc. and is the owner of the DIXIE trademark in Canada (used in Canada since 1917).

The Registrant registered the Domain Name in 2005 and the parked web site contained links to other web sites offering for sale products that compete with Dixie. After Dixie contacted the Registrant with notice of the Complainant's rights in the trade-mark, the Registrant changed the web site to contain a solitary link inviting users to "contact the owner of this domain."

The Panel found that by using the word "Dixie" the domain name was confusingly similar and found that the presence of links to competitors was sufficient to establish bad faith. Given evidence from the Complainant that it had no business relationship with the Registrant and the absence of any evidence of legitimate interest from the Registrant, the Panel found that there was no legitimate interest and ordered the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.


You can read the decision here.

#265 - marshallmattress.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panelists transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant.

 

The Complainant, Marshall Ventilated Mattress Company Limited was founded in 1918 and has extensively used a trade-mark prominently including MARSHALL MATTRESS.  The Registrant never responded to the Complaint.  On December 6, 2013, the Registrant, a manager of a mattress retailer in London, Ontario contacted the Complainant about the possibility of selling the Complainant’s mattresses, and on that same day registered the Domain Name. Despite demand, the Registrant never transferred the Domain Name which resolved to the Registrant’s www.cheapbeds ca web site to the Complainant.  The Panelist found that the Registrant registered the Domain Name in bad faith because of the timing of the Domain Name registration, and because internet users would be enticed to purchase mattresses from cheapbeds.ca in a manner likely to deceive them.  

                                                                                                    

You can read the decision here.  

$264 - sesamesnaps.ca - TRANSFER

The Complainant established its case and the Panelists transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant.

 

The Complainant, Argos Trading Confectionery SP. Z.O.O. is the Polish owner of the popular SESAME SNAPS treat. It has owned the trade-mark and used it in Canada since 1971 in association with sesame bars.  In February, 2010, the Registrant registered the Domain Name.  Around this time, the Registrant and/or its previously authorized distributor sold sesame bars in association with the “Classic Sesame” mark (and a similar logo to the Complainant’s). 

Of note: The Registrant’s web site explicitly stated “Copyright © 2010-2013. David Michaels, dba Sesame Snaps in Canada and the USA”.  Although the Registrant argued that he was going to issue a Federal Court action invalidating the Complainant’s mark, The Panel found that the Registrant and Complainant were not affiliated in any way at the time of the Domain Name registration, and were clearly competitors (Registrant argued he was the brand consultant for the Complainant’s authorized distributor between 2003 - 2010.

                                                                                                           

You can read the decision here.  

#263 - victoriassecret.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panelists transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant.

 

The Complainant, Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. is the owner of the immensely popular VICTORIA’S SECRET family of trade-marks (used in Canada as early as 1977).  In November, 2000, the Registrant registered the Domain Name.  The Registrant argued that it never registered the Domain Name in bad faith, has been redirecting the Domain to the Complainant’s websites for several years and that the Complainant is estopped from bringing this proceeding since negotiations for transfer of the Domain Name failed in 2009.  Of note: The Complainant argued that redirecting the Domain Name to a web site that wasn’t a fully functional version of the Complainant’s website is disruptive to its business.  The Panel further found that the Registrant did not deny knowledge of the trade-mark especially in light of his submissions that he was attempting to “protect” the Complainant’s interests, at his own expense.  The Panel further commented that the Complainant cannot control the use of the Domain Name in the future which helped to establish the circumstances surrounding bad faith.

                                                                                                    

You can read the decision here.  

#262 - veluxcalgary.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panelist transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant.

 

The Complainant, VRK Holdings A/S is the manufacturer of roof windows and accessories and uses the well-known VELUX trade-mark (in Canada since 1982).  In April, 2012, Registrant registered the Domain Name.  The Registrant responded to the complaint by e-mail: “There is no dispute here…”. Of note: The Panel found that the reproduction of the VELUX trade-mark on the Domain Name combined with the discussion of VELUX products (along with competitor’s products) was sufficient to establish bad faith since the Registrant has no business relationship with the Complainant.

                                                                                                    

You can read the decision here.  

#261 - thedeckstore.ca - REFUSED

The Complainant is Ontario’s largest independent deck design, supplier and builder with showrooms in Toronto, Oakville, Oshawa and Milton.  The Complainant’s trade name is The Deck Store Inc., has been using thedeckstore.ca as its web site, and asserts common law trade-mark rights in THE DECK STORE. The Complainant owned the disputed Domain Name in 2008, but failed to renew it.  The Domain Name was registered on May 13, 2010 by Deck Masters of Canada, who subsequently sold the Domain Name to The Deck Store Ltd. (in June, 2013).   Of note: the Registrant opened its store THE DECK STORE in Edmonton in 2010. 

The Panel found that the Complainant failed to establish that its trade-mark was distinctive so as to distinguish its wares/services from other competitors in the business as at the date of the registration of the Domain Name, and relies on the CIPO trade-mark examiner’s report that the Complainant’s THE DECK STORE trade-mark application was clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of its services. The Panel addressed other issues, including a refusal to award costs for reverse domain name hijacking and finding leniency on the Complainant for imputing bad faith assumed on the part of its nemesis, Deck Masters of Canada (see thedeckstoreinc.ca).

You can read the decision here.   

                        

#260 - thedeckstoreinc.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant is Ontario’s largest independent deck design, supplier and builder with showrooms in Toronto, Oakville, Oshawa and Milton.  The Complainant’s trade name is The Deck Store Inc., has been using the web site thedeckstore.ca, and asserts common law trade-mark rights in THE DECK STORE. The Registrant registered the Domain Name on June 1, 2013.  The Registrant is a former supplier of the Complainant, owns several hundred domain names including several with ‘deckstore’ in its name, and is owed several thousands of dollars by the Complainant in unpaid bills.

The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith, amongst other things, because of the cybersquatting elements associated with this registration – especially given that the Registrant indicated it would be willing to transfer the domain once the Complainant pays its unpaid bills.

You can read the decision here.

#259 - grandmarnier.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant is the owner in Canada of the GRAND MARNIER trademark, first registered in 1973 for use in association with liquor. The Registrant registered the Domain Name in 2009 and did not respond to the Complaint.

The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the web site featured links to ‘alcohol drink recipes’ and other content suggesting it was intended to compete with the Complainant for internet traffic.

You can read the decision here. 

#258 - novozymes.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant manufactures, develops and sells biotech products in Canada, the USA and Europe and also owns the novozymes.com domain name. The Complainant registered its mark NOVOZYMES in Canada as early as March, 2004. The disputed Domain Name was registered on January 3, 2014 and the Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint. 

The Panel held that the Domain Name redirects users to websites of  companies competing with the Complainant by selling enzymes. Furthermore, the Complainant showed that the domain name novozymes.ca was offered for sale on a popular domain brokerage site, which was sufficient to demonstrate bad faith under the Policy.

You can read the decision here. 

#257 - tucowsreseller.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panel transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant. The Registrant (through its notorious representative Daniel Mullen) attempted to respond to the Complaint, but it was rejected by Resolution Canada Inc. for non-compliance.

The Complainant, is a very popular domain name registrar since 1999, and the owner of the Canadian trademark TUCOWS. The disputed domain name was registered in April, 2012.

The Panel found the Domain Name was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade-mark, especially in light of the fact that TUCOWS is a coined word and inherently distinctive.  The Panel found that the Registrant registered the Domain Name in bad faith because the web site contained a hyper-link labelled “…may be for sale” and several hyper-links pertain to web site creation, hosting, and even links pertaining to the availability of domain names for sale, including tucowsreseller.ca. 

Of note: the panel did not consider the contents of without prejudice communications exchanged between the parties and respected the inadmissibility of this evidence had it been a formal court proceeding. 

You can read the decision here. 

#255 - doscusign.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

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

The Complainant, Docusign Inc., provides cloud-based signature technology.  In September, 2013, the Complainant learned that J2 Global Communications owned the disputed Domain Name (docusign.ca).  Despite the Complainant entering into an agreement to acquire the Domain Name, the Registrant, E-Signature Inc. asserted ownership.  Negotiations with E-Signature to acquire the Domain Name failed.  The Panel notes that DocuSign was registered in Canada in May 2008. The Registrant is a competitor of the Complainant and the Panel further noted that the Domain Name had no activity until the failed negotiations.  The Panel further held that the Domain Name could have a confusingly and negative public image impact/confusion about affiliation or sponsorship with the Complainant.

You can read the decision here. 

#256 - cec-cce.ca - TRANFER GRANTED

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

The Complainant, Canadian Employers Council/ Conseil Canadian des Employeurs is the ‘voice’ of Canadian businesses on international labour issues. It uses the trade name ‘Canadian Employers Council’ (in English) and the ‘Conseil Canadian Des Employeurs’ (in French)”; and it “also commonly uses and is referred to under the abbreviated trade names ‘CEC’ or ‘CCE’”.  The Complainant inadvertently let its Domain Name (subject matter of this Complaint) lapse on August 15, 2013.  The Registrant’s web site contains the identical home page to that which previously appeared. The Panel held that the uniqueness of the domain name combined with the Complainant’s use over a long period of time was sufficient to establish bad faith.

You can read the decision here.           

shophockeycanada.com - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panel transferred the Domain Names to the Complainant. 

The complainant, the Canadian Hockey Association (“CHA”), is the owner of both Canadian official marks and a US trade-mark registration for HOCKEY CANADA. 

Interestingly, and because this Asian-based web site selling counterfeit merchandise provided fake WHOIS information belonging to a Registrant in the United States, the Panel disregarded CHA’s Canadian official marks, and rightfully held that its US trade-mark registration was sufficient to establish rights.  

The Complainant argued that the goods for sale on the disputed domain were counterfeit, which the panel found was sufficient to establish bad faith. 

You can read the decision here. 

guitarcenter.ca and laguitarcenter.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panel transferred the Domain Names to the Complainant. The Registrant did not respond to the Complaint.

The Complainant, a musical instrument retailer operating 252 retail locations across the United States, is the owner of the Canadian trademarks GUITAR CENTER and GUITAR CENTER & DESIGN. Although the disputed Domain Names were registered before the Complainant's trademarks, the Panel found that the Complainant had rights in its marks prior to registration. 

The Complaint produced evidence that it had used the GUITAR CENTER mark in radio advertisements in Windsor, Ontario. Furthermore, the Complainant argued that the marks had notoriety worldwide in Canada due to the historic Hollywood Rock Walk located at its flagship store in Los Angeles. Finally, the Complainant sells goods through guitarcenter.com, including to customers in Canada. Between 2006  and 2011, the Complainant’s records identified thousands of Canadian customers.

To establish bad faith, the Panel noted that at least three other CDRP Complaints have been successfully brought against the Registrant.

#251 - greybrook.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panel transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant.

The Complainant is a subsidiary of Greybrook Corporation, which provides financial services in relation to real estate transactions, and the owner of the registered trademark, GREYBROOK, which was registered on February 25, 2010, The Registrant registered the disputed Domain Name on April 7, 2011 and the website resolved to the Registrant’s website, moscowitzcapital.com, also providing financial services in relation to real estate transactions.  The Registrant further requested the sum of $1,700.00 for the alleged bad faith filing of Complainant in filing the Complaint.

The Registrant alleged that they were entitled to use the trade-mark, as it was the name of a river in New Brunswick connected to the Registrant’s business. No proof of the existence of such a river was advanced.   

The Panel found that the Registrant was attempting to use the domain name to redirect those interested in the services of the Complainant, which was sufficient to establish bad faith.  Because the Registrant was unsuccessful, this shows the Complaint was not brought in bad faith, and the Registrant is therefore not entitled to $1,700.00, to offset the cost of preparing a response.

You can read the decision here. 

#252 - wallythompson.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established his case and the Panelist transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant. The Registrant did not respond to the Complaint.

The Complainant, whose personal name is the domain in question, is an insurance professional and Vice-President Client Relationships & Business Development at Manulife Financial Affinity Markets.  He is also a Canadian resident. The Registrant was a customer of Manulife and was unhappy with a decision made by the Complainant. The issue for the Panelist was whether a personal name could be the subject of a complaint under the Policy.

The Panel found that the Complainant promoted and developed good will in his name over a long period of time (over 15 years).  As a result, his name had become a trade name and the Complainant had acquired common law rights over the mark WALLY THOMPSON.

The Panel found that the Registrant intended to cause harm to a trademark holder, for no legitimate purpose and as a result had met the requirements of bad faith under the policy. The Panelist found that link to adult web sites in order to tarnish the Complainant’s reputation is an element of bad faith. 

You can read the decision here. 

#253 - giuliaahmadi.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established her case and the Panelist transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant. The Registrant did not respond to the Complaint.

The Complainant, whose personal name is the domain in question, is a lawyer at Manulife Financial Affinity Markets and a Canadian resident. The Registrant was a customer of Manulife and was unhappy with a decision made by the Complainant. The issue for the Panelist was whether a personal name could be the subject of a complaint under the policy.

The Panel found that the Complainant promoted her own name both as a lawyer and in the insurance industry over a long period of time.  As a result, her name had become a trade name and the Complainant had acquired common law rights over the mark GIULIA AHMADI.

The Panel found that the Registrant intended to cause harm to a trademark holder, for no legitimate purpose and as a result had met the requirements of bad faith under the policy. What was particularly disturbing to the Panelist was the tone of the e-mail conversations and communications between the Registrant and Complainant whereby the Registrant intended to circulate information about the Complainant’s family on the Internet.  

You can read the decision here. 

#250 - INTIMISSIMI.CA - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panel transferred the Domain Name to the Complainant.

The Complainant is M.F.H. Fejleszto Korlatolt Felelossegu Tarsasag of Budapest, Hungary and owner of the INTIMISSIMI family of trade-marks. The INTIMISSIMI trade-mark was registered in Canada on January 16, 2003. The Registrant Viviana Rossi registered the disputed Domain Name on February 27, 2013 and did not respond to the Complaint. The Panel found that the Registrant’s offer to sell the disputed domain name for $7,500.00, an amount clearly in excess of the costs for registering an acquiring the Domain Name, was indicative of bad faith. The Panel further held that the Registrant registered other domain names (philipmorris.ca, emporioarmaniwatches.ca) bearing recognizable trade-marks, also an element of bad faith. 

You can read the decision here. 

#249 - americanexpresscreditcards.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panel therefore directed the transfer of americanexpresscreditcards.ca to the Complainant.

The Registrant (Nameshield, Inc. – Daniel Mullen) responded to the Complaint. American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (“AMEX”) is the owner of the AMERICAN EXPRESS trade-marks registered in Canada since 1978 and 1979 for use in association with various credit card services.  First use dates as far back as 1891.   The Domain Name was registered on January 26, 2011.  The Domain Name resolves to a typical pay-per-click web site containing a series of links to various credit card companies’ websites, including the Complainant.     

The Registrant attempted to argue that the web site does not contain the logo or other trade dress of the Complainant and the operator of the pay-per-click service provides advertising on behalf of Google, Inc. 

The Panel held that the operation of a pay-per-click web site incorporating the Complainant’s trade-mark satisfies the bad faith requirements of paragraph 3.5 (d) of the CDRP. 

Mr. Mullen also unsuccessfully argued that he had a legitimate interest in the Domain Name because he was attempting to dispel the confusion about the financial services offered by the Complainant. 

You can read the decision here.  

#248 - amextravel.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant established its case and the Panel therefore directed the transfer of amextravel.ca to the Complainant.

The Registrant (Interex Corporate Registration Service Inc. which it argues is a “nominal registrant” protecting its client (which appears to be Daniel Mullen)) responded to the Complaint. American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (“AMEX”) is the owner of the AMEX and AMEX TRAVEL ASSURANCE trade-marks registered in Canada between 1987 and 2008 for use in association with various credit card and travel related services.  The Registrant attempted to argue that the Complainant’s trade-marks were not valid, and that the terms of the CDRP were also not valid, despite also agreeing to the wording of the Policy when it registered the Domain Name.  The Domain Name resolves to a typical pay-per-click web site containing a series of links to various credit card companies’ websites, including the Complainant. 

The Registrant unsuccessfully argued that it did not register the Domain Name in bad faith since it is the visitors to the web site that determine which links are included (presumably by previous searches made by each visitor).   

You can read the decision here. 

#247 - alamocar.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

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

The Complainant is Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA, LLC, the owner of the ALAMO and ALAMO RENT-A-CAR trade-marks, used in Canada in association with automobile renting services. The Complainant has used the ALAMO trade-mark in Canada at least as early as 1998. The Registrant registered the disputed Domain Names on February 10, 2012 and did not respond to this Complaint. The Panelist found that the Domain Name was 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 related  links to other car rental services.  

You can read the decision here. 

#246 - halloweencity.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complaint sells party supplies using the trademark HALLOWEEN CITY and the domain names and web sites halloweencity.com and halloweencitycanada.com. The domain at issue is halloweencity.ca.

 The Complainant registered the trademark HALLOWEEN CITY on 31 October 2013, but had been using the Trade-mark, unregistered, for many decades. The Panel found that, since the Domain Name is effectively identical to the trademark it was clearly “confusingly similar” to the Complainant’s Trade-mark.

The Registrant initially offered the domain name for sale to the Complainant for US$30,000. The Panel found that offering the Domain Name for sale had long been considered a clear indicium of bath faith. Furthermore, the Panel found that no use was being made of the Domain Name, and was not the name or surname of the Registrant and the Domain Name, and was not linked geographically to any place of business meaning that the Complainant had met its burden of showing that there was some evidence that the Registrant had no legitimate interest in the Domain. The Panelist ordered the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.

You can read the decision here. 

#245 - party-city.ca and partycitycanada.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant is a maker and seller of party supplies that operates the websites partycity.com and partycity.ca. The disputed domain names are party-city.ca and partycitycanada.ca.  Both Domain Names redirected to web sites operated by the Registrant that sell party supplies and stationery.  The Complainant registered its trade-mark PARTY CITY in Canada in 1995. The Registrant argued that the Complaint`s Trade-mark was a “commonly used generic expression available to everyone”.

The Panel found that the Domain Names were likely to be confusing because they consisted of the entire mark PARTY CITY with either a hyphen or the term Canada added which did not dispel any confusion. The Panel found the Registrant had no legitimate interest in the Domain Names and rejected the argument that the Domain Names were generic because the Trade-mark was registrable and therefore not clearly descriptive.

Regarding bad faith, the Complaint pointed out that the Registrant advertised that the Domain Names were for “sale, business expansion, partnerships, hosting and networking within the industry.” The panel found that a desire to sell these Domain Names for profit is an indicium of bad faith.  Furthermore the Panel found that the Registrant presumably had registered the domain name "party-city.ca" because the more obvious version "partycity.ca" was already registered meaning the Registrant must have known of the Complainant at the time of registering the domain.

You can read the decision here.