Monday, January 30, 2023


The Complainant is a statutory corporation and independent agency of the Ontario government - WSIB is the workplace compensation board for provincially-regulated workplaces. It owns numerous official marks. It owns and operates the domain name (and 

The Complainant states that the Registrant egregiously used fake email addresses to impersonate WSIB in-house counsel, and attempted to perpetrate a fraudulent wire transfer payment scheme. 

The Panl held that the evidence supports a finding that the Domain name was registered for the express purpose of perpetrating a targeted and sophisticated fraud attempt against WSIB.

You can read the decision here


The Complainant offers products derived from credit information maintained about individual consumer and businesses, and owns the EQUIFAX trademark. The Domain was registered 46 years after registrations of the Complainant's trademarks in Canada. 

The Panel held that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith, and the pay-per-click links forwarded users to competing services - this was considered "opportunistic bad faith". 


 The Complainant uses the IMAX trademark in association for its notorious motion picture and movie theatre services. 

It inadvertently let its 20+ year ownership of the disputed Domain Name lapse (in September, 2021).  Further, the Registrant attempted to negotiate purchase of the Domain Name in the amount of $180,000.00 USD. The Registrant responded (late) and took the position that it is a small web development company, and takes the position that numerous IMAX marks are owned by numerous third parties...and "i" is used before consumer products in a generic way.

The Panelist found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith, and held that Registrants have an affirmative obligation to avoid the registration of trademark-abusive domain names. 

You can read the decision here

Tuesday, January 3, 2023


The Complainant owns a clinic in Quebec and uses the mark MonSmile.  Allegedly, the Complainant retained a company (Starkad Inc.) to fulfil marketing for the dental practice, and the "Registrant" (whom they never met) worked on the marketing initiative on behalf of Starkad Inc., but was never paid.  The Registrant did not respond to the Complaint. 

The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith due in part to its failure to respond to the Complaint.

You can read the decision here