The Complainant manufactures braking systems for vehicles using the KNORR-BREMSE trademark (registered in Canada and in use since 1975). The Registrant purports to offer to sell goods belonging to the Complainant, and the Complainant's competitors.
The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the Registrant knew of the Complainant's mark, and was using the mark to bait users into making a purchase on the website, and then switching the products to Complainant's products.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Monday, November 5, 2018
The Complainant owns the LUMILEDS registered trademark (registered after the date of the Domain Name registration) but alleges it commenced use in Canada since 2001. The Registrant (based in Quebec) also uses the LUMILEDS trademark in Canada (he combined Lumiere (French translated word for Light) and LEDS (light emitting diode in plural), and started his business, Lumileds Inc., after he searched CIPO, and noticed that the Complainant had abandoned the LUMILEDS trademark in Canada.
The Complainant delivered a cease and desist letter, but the matter did not resolve between the parties.
The Panel refused to decide whether the Registrant had a legitimate interest in the Domain (on the question of whether the legal name of the Registrant must exist at the time of the registration of the Domain Name – since it incorporated Lumileds Inc. after it registered the Domain Name).
Instead, the Panel found that the Domain Name was not registered in bad faith. The Panel was unable to conclude that the Complainant had been using the mark as of the date of the Domain Name Registration (or that it asserted trademark rights prior to a later-dated 2014 LUMILEDS trademark application). Additionally, the Panel found that the Registrant had a disclaimer on the site and, despite being competitors, arguably was not trying to drive traffic away from the Complainant’s business. The Panel found that there are competing claims for trademark and domain name rights, which is outside the scope of a CDRP proceeding.
You can read the decision here.