The Complainant owns the family of HOME DEPOT trademarks, and is the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer. The Complainant entered Canada in 1994.
The Domain Name was being used by the Registrant to offer on-demand print services of others, including vistaprint.com, captainprint.com and autalcard.ca, and other times reverts to a web page listing the Domain Name for sale. Additionally, the Registrant owns over 1,500 Domain Names, many of which contain trademarks belonging to third parties.
The Panel concluded that the Registrant is taking advantage of the fame of the Complainant's trademarks, and the Complainant has no control over the use of the Domain Name, which interferes with its business, internet traffic, reputation and customer relations.
You can read the decision here.
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Thursday, May 2, 2019
#389 - gamereadycanada.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED
The Complainant is a manufacturer of medical equipment using the trademark GAME READY, registered in Canada in June, 2005. The Registrant is the former distributor of the Complainant's medical equipment.
From 2005 until April, 2016, the Registrant was the Complainant's distributor in Canada. The Distribution Agreement included a prohibition from using the Complainant's trademarks in a domain name, and requirement to cease using Complainant's trademarks upon termination. Despite Complainant's request for return of the Domain Name, the Registrant failed to do so, and instead re-directed the Domain Name to the Registrant wife's business.
The Registrant's position is that the initial registration was with Complainant's knowledge and with approval, and that the termination of the distribution agreement was in bad faith.
The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the initial registration is not determinative of bad faith. Additionally, the Registrant "suggested" a price much higher than the registration costs, and sought to tie the transfer to an overall resolution.
Additionally, the Panel found that the Registrant's interest in the Domain is not "currently" legitimate.
You can read the decision here.
From 2005 until April, 2016, the Registrant was the Complainant's distributor in Canada. The Distribution Agreement included a prohibition from using the Complainant's trademarks in a domain name, and requirement to cease using Complainant's trademarks upon termination. Despite Complainant's request for return of the Domain Name, the Registrant failed to do so, and instead re-directed the Domain Name to the Registrant wife's business.
The Registrant's position is that the initial registration was with Complainant's knowledge and with approval, and that the termination of the distribution agreement was in bad faith.
The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the initial registration is not determinative of bad faith. Additionally, the Registrant "suggested" a price much higher than the registration costs, and sought to tie the transfer to an overall resolution.
Additionally, the Panel found that the Registrant's interest in the Domain is not "currently" legitimate.
You can read the decision here.
#388 - gameready.ca - TRANSFER GRANTED
The Complainant is a manufacturer of medical equipment using the trademark GAME READY, registered in Canada in June, 2005. The Registrant is the husband of the former distributor of the Complainant's medical equipment.
From 2005 until April, 2016, the Registrant's wife was the Complainant's distributor in Canada. The Distribution Agreement included a prohibition from using the Complainant's trademarks in a domain name, and requirement to cease using Complainant's trademarks upon termination. Despite Complainant's request for return of the Domain Name, the Registrant failed to do so, and instead re-directed the Domain Name to the Registrant wife's business.
The Registrant's position is that the initial registration was with Complainant's knowledge and with approval, and that the termination of the distribution agreement was in bad faith.
The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the initial registration is not determinative of bad faith. Additionally, the Registrant "suggested" a price much higher than the registration costs, and sought to tie the transfer to an overall resolution.
Additionally, the Panel found that the Registrant's interest in the Domain is not "currently" legitimate.
You can read the decision here.
From 2005 until April, 2016, the Registrant's wife was the Complainant's distributor in Canada. The Distribution Agreement included a prohibition from using the Complainant's trademarks in a domain name, and requirement to cease using Complainant's trademarks upon termination. Despite Complainant's request for return of the Domain Name, the Registrant failed to do so, and instead re-directed the Domain Name to the Registrant wife's business.
The Registrant's position is that the initial registration was with Complainant's knowledge and with approval, and that the termination of the distribution agreement was in bad faith.
The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the initial registration is not determinative of bad faith. Additionally, the Registrant "suggested" a price much higher than the registration costs, and sought to tie the transfer to an overall resolution.
Additionally, the Panel found that the Registrant's interest in the Domain is not "currently" legitimate.
You can read the decision here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)