Friday, February 26, 2016

#307 -,,,,,, and - TRANSFER GRANTED

The Complainant owns Canadian trademark registrations for the trademark KIJIJI, registered February 12, 2008. The trademark registration was before five of the disputed domains were registered, but subsequent to three. The Panel found that since the Complainant had used the mark in Canada since 2005 and registered the domain name on January 18, 2005, the Complainant had rights in the Mark prior to the registration of the disputed domains.


The Panel refused to find that bad faith was established pursuant to 3.5(b) of the Policy (preventing the Complainant from registering the domain names), because the domain names were variations of the trademarks, not the KIJIJI trademark itself, and the Panel is therefore required to consider the intention of the Registrant.


The Panel did find that bad faith was established pursuant to 3.5(d) of the Policy (intentionally attracting internet users for financial gain).

You can read the decision here.


The Complainant operates an international chauffeured limousine service business in association with the CAREY trademark. The Complainant has operated its limousine service business in association with the CAREY trademark in Canada since 1982.

The Panel noted that while the Complainant failed to provide evidence of trademark searches to indicate that the Registrant does not have a legitimate interest in the term “CAREY,” it found that the distinct nature of the CAREY trademark, and the Registrant’s use of the Domain Name for a deceptive web site (reproducing portions of the Complainant’s web site) were sufficient to satisfy the Complainants’ evidentiary burden to provide some evidence that the Registrant had no legitimate interest.  With respect to bad faith, the Panel noted that there is rarely “direct evidence” of bad faith and in most cases it is based on common sense inferences of the registrant’s conduct and other surrounding circumstances.  In this case, the trademark was registered for several years prior to the domain name registration, the domain name contains additional descriptive terms implying the registrant knew of the Complainant’s business, and the Registrant’s web site copied substantial parts of the Complainant’s web site.

You can read the decision here.

Monday, February 8, 2016


The Domain name at issue is The Complainant owns the HAIRFINITY trademark registered for use in association with vitamin supplements.

The disputed Domain Name was registered on April 7, 2015, two weeks before the HAIRFINITY trademark was registered with CIPO. However, the Complainant has used the HAIRFINITY trademark in Canada since as early as January, 2008.  The Complainant has a large online presence, including through its domain name, Instagram and Facebook.

The panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith as evidenced by the pay per-click links to third party websites including Indigo, a popular bookstore that also sells personal care and body care products. Additionally, the Registrant had previously been involved in 3 UDRP cases proceedings, all of which found the Registrant had used third party trademarks in bad faith.

You can read the decision here.