$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.