Friday, August 28, 2015

#294 - dellbusiness.ca and delldeals.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED


The Domain Name, dellbusiness.ca was registered on November 21, 2012, and updated, January 5, 2015. The Domain Name delldeals.ca, was registered on November 14, 2012, and updated December 7, 2014. The complainant is the owner of a number of DELL trademarks, first registered in 1989. The complainant owns dell.com dell.ca and dellrefurbished.ca among others.

 

The panel found that the Domain Names were confusingly similar to the trademark and, in accordance with numerous CIRA und WIPO case the inclusion of additional descriptive words or letters did not prevent the domain from being confusingly similar. The Registrant's procedural objections were meritless, including complaining that Dell's representative was based in the UK, the Complaint had not been served properly and DELL does not own a trademark for "operating a website".

 

The panel found that bad faith was evidenced by a pattern of registering infringing domain names, resolving the domains to pay per click websites and listing the domains for sale at domainnamesales.com.


You can read the decision here.

#289 - sensormatic.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED

Complainant is an affiliate of Tyco International Plc, which provides fire, security and surveillance services. The Complainant obtained two trade-mark registrations in Canada for the word “SENSORMATIC”, the earliest having been registered March 5, 1974.
 
The Domain Name was registered on August 9, 2013, and resolves to a website www.jeanmachine.com where the Registrant is employed as an operations manager. The Complainant and Registrant entered settlement dialogue, and the Registrant initially agreed to transfer the domain to the Complainant if the Complainant was willing to cover all of the Registrant’s costs. The matter did not settle.  The Registrant did not respond to the Complaint.
 
The Panel found that the domain was clearly confusingly similar to the mark. Furthermore, the Registrant had a pattern of registering domains identical to the trademarks of others, which allowed the panel to infer bad faith.

You can read the decision here.

#290 - starbeamsystems.ca - TRANSFERRED ON CONSENT

The Domain was transferred to the Complainant with the consent of the Registrant who offered to transfer the Domain Name as a "gesture of goodwill".


You can read the decision here.

#291 - thefundingportal.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED


The Complainant is the owner in Canada of common law trade-mark rights in the mark “THE FUNDING PORTAL,” which precede the registration date of the Domain. The Domain Name was identical to the trademark.

 

While the Complainant did not produce any evidence that the Registrant engaged in a pattern of registering domain names, they did prove that the Registrant offered to sell the domain for $10,000. The Panel found that the offer exceeded the Registrant's actual costs in registering the Domain Name, evidencing bad faith.

You can read the decision here.

#292 - glashuette-original.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED


The Complainant is a designer, manufacturer, seller and retailer of luxury wrist watches.

The Domain Name resolved to a pay-per-click website featuring sponsored links to competitors of the Complainant. When contacted by the Complainant, the Respondent initially offered to sell the domain for $6000.00, but later reduced the price to $1600. The Panel found that the offer evidenced “classic cybersquatting” and constituted bad faith.

You can read the decision here.

#293 - ZEVIA.ca - transfer granted

Zevia has produced beverages since 2007 in the US, Canada and online through its website. It operates under its ZEVIA trademark which was registered in the United States on October 23, 2007. Its business expanded into Canada and it filed an application with the CIPO to register the ZEVIA trademark in Canada 2008. Three months later the disputed domain was registered, although the Canadian trademark was not registered until 2010.

The disputed domain was inactive but the panel found that if it were to become active it would confuse the public. The Panel found that, given the very distinctive trade mark at issue, it would be “difficult to conceive of” a legitimate use of the domain. The Registrant did not respond to the complaint. Furthermore, the Registrant had engaged in a pattern of registering domain names of popular trademarks.

You can read the decision here.