Who Solicited Who?
As readers will know, different jurisdictions have different procedures for trademark registrations. As the Panel observed in this particular case, the Complainant’s French trademark was registered on October 14, 2011, but was made effective from March 30, 2011, i.e. the date of application, as is apparently the French practice. Usually, a registration with such retroactive effect wouldn’t be a material consideration for a Panel, but in this particular case, the Domain Name registration was made during the intervening period, in July 11, 2011 i.e. after the trademark application was filed but before the registration was obtained… continue reading the commentary…
Join us in Vegas!
January 26-28, 2025
Resorts World
www.ICA.Vegas
We hope you will enjoy this edition of the Digest (vol. 5.2) as we review these noteworthy recent decisions with expert commentary. (We invite guest commenters to contact us):
‣ Who Solicited Who? (amexio .com *with commentary)
‣ ‘Panel is Not a General Domain Court’ (dataparrot .ai) *with commentary)
‣ Respondent Registered Typo of Dictionary Word (leathaer .com *with commentary)
‣ Did the Asking Price Show Good Faith? (generaldynamics .net *with commentary)
‣ Panel: ‘Pharma and Nutra’ – Common Prefixes in Specialized Industries, Making an Obvious Choice (pharmanutra .com *with commentary)
Who Solicited Who?
Michelios 3 and AmeXio v. Domain Manager, eWeb Development Inc, WIPO Case No. D2024-4344
<amexio .com>
Panelist: Mr. Matthew Kennedy (Presiding), Mr. Jérôme Huet and Mr. Jeffrey Neuman
Brief Facts: The First Complainant is a holding company of the Second Complainant. The First Complainant commenced business on July 12, 2021, and owns the EU trademark registration for AMEXIO (March 23, 2024). The Second Complainant, founded in 2006, operates in the field of digital transformation, providing Enterprise Content Management (“ECM”) and Customer Communications Management (“CCM”) services. The Second Complainant has registered the domain name <amexio .fr> and owns the French trademark registration (dated October 14, 2011; effective from March 30, 2011); and International trademark registration dated October 13, 2017, designating the Benelux countries, Switzerland, and Portugal.
The disputed Domain Name was registered on July 24, 2011 and resolves to a landing page. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark, when the disputed Domain Name was registered (and later renewed) since the Complainant had already registered their trademark on March 11, 2011. The Complainant further alleges that the disputed Domain Name was proposed to be sold to the Complainants to make unreasonable profits. The proposition was US $25,000 from June 6, 2023, and represents a valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent contends that prior to notice of any dispute, the Respondent used the disputed Domain Name as understood by the Policy, for offering the disputed Domain Name for sale as part of the Respondent’s stock-in-trade of attractive domain names for new entrants to the marketplace; and for email to communicate with potential customers. The Respondent further contends that at the time of Domain Name registration, the Complainants only had a pending trademark application, which grants no rights until registration and that the Complainants offer no proof that the Respondent knew or should have known about their trademark when acquiring the domain name.
Held: In the present case, the disputed Domain Name was registered in July 2011, three months before the Complainant acquired its earliest trademark registration for AMEXIO. The Panel considered whether exceptional circumstances show that the Respondent’s intent in registering the disputed Domain Name was to unfairly capitalize on the Complainant’s nascent, as yet unregistered, trademark rights. In that regard, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s French trademark application was pending when the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name. AMEXIO is not a dictionary or geographical word but rather a coined term, and the disputed Domain Name is identical to it. However, there is no evidence on the record of the Complainant’s foundation, operations, or reputation prior to July 2011.
The Respondent solemnly declares that at no time prior to the registration of the disputed Domain Name did the Respondent have any awareness of the Complainant or its trademarks, and offers a reasonable alternative explanation for her selection of the disputed Domain Name, i.e., that it was a creatively “made-up” term for a prospective customer. In the Panel’s view, this explanation is borne out by the evidence showing that the Respondent had previously acquired similar domain names (i.e. amexi .com and imexio .com) and subsequently acquired other similar domain names. Further, the Panel recalls that a number of UDRP panels in 2009 and 2010 explored the application of registrant representations in paragraph 2 of the Policy in finding so-called “retroactive” bad faith registration. However, this concept has not been followed in subsequent cases.
RDNH: The Panel notes that the Complainant has legal representation in this proceeding. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of acquiring the disputed Domain Name, yet the Complaint provides no evidence on the record of the Complainant’s foundation, operations, or reputation prior to that time (or since). The arguments on bad faith in the Complaint include the materially inaccurate statement that the disputed Domain Name was created “while the Complainant had already registered its trademark previously” when in fact the trademark had not yet been registered at that time (as protection was granted later with retroactive effect).
The Complaint also misleadingly asserts that the disputed Domain Name “was proposed to be sold to the complainant” without mentioning that the offer was solicited by the Complainant and cropping the annexed screenshot just above the text indicating that the offer was prepared in response to the Complainant’s quote request. In the Panel’s view, these are indications of bad faith, and that the Complainant launched this case as “Plan B” after it failed to acquire the disputed Domain Name at a price within its budget. Given the above circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
Complaint Denied (RDNH)
Complainant’s Counsel: Legal In Motion (LEGALiM), France
Respondent’s Counsel: Muscovitch Law P.C., Canada
Disclosure: The Respondent’s Counsel in this dispute is the General Counsel of the ICA, though he handled this dispute through his private practice.
Case Comment by Editor, Ankur Raheja: As readers will know, different jurisdictions have different procedures for trademark registrations. As the Panel observed in this particular case, the Complainant’s French trademark was registered on October 14, 2011, but was made effective from March 30, 2011, i.e. the date of application, as is apparently the French practice. Usually, a registration with such retroactive effect wouldn’t be a material consideration for a Panel, but in this particular case, the Domain Name registration was made during the intervening period, in July 11, 2011 i.e. after the trademark application was filed but before the registration was obtained.
That put into play the question of whether the Domain Name registration preceded the Complainant’s trademark rights. As the Panel noted, where a respondent registers a domain name before a complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent. The Panel then engaged in an examination of whether there was any evidence of common law trademark rights and whether there were any exceptional circumstances indicating that the Respondent registered the Domain Name “in anticipation” of the Complainant’s trademark rights (i.e. the exception to the general rule).
This interesting chronology also became relevant when examining RDNH. The Panel noted that the Complaint included the materially inaccurate statement that the disputed domain name was created “while the Complainant had already registered its trademark previously” when in fact the trademark had not yet been registered at that time (as protection was granted later with retroactive effect).
Notably, the Panel also found that “the Complainant assert[ed] that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of acquiring the disputed domain name, yet the Complaint provides no evidence on the record of the Complainant’s foundation, operations, or reputation prior to that time (or since).” This is a good reminder to counsel for Complainants that they cannot avoid submitting evidence on material aspects of a case, if they hope to succeed. As noted in UDRP Perspectives at 0.2, to allow a party to merely make factual claims without any supporting evidence would essentially eviscerate the requirements of the Policy as both complainants and respondents could simply claim anything without any proof. For this reason, Panels have generally dismissed factual allegations that are not supported by any bona fide documentary or other credible evidence.
Lastly, another notable aspect of the Panel’s decision in this case concerns the Complainant’s mischaracterization of pre-dispute communications. As the Panel notes;
The Complaint also misleadingly asserts that the disputed domain name “was proposed to be sold to the complainant” without mentioning that the offer was solicited by the Complainant and cropping the annexed screenshot just above the text indicating that the offer was prepared in response to the Complainant’s quote request (which is visible in the uncropped version annexed to the Response).
The mischaracterization of pre-dispute communications is something that we see all too often. It is not always done by cropping evidence, as was apparently done in this case. (See; Murad, Inc. v. Stacy Brock, NAF Claim No. FA1202001431430865). At other times, a Complainant will unscrupulously mischaracterize the solicitation to make it look like the Respondent sought out the Complainant rather than the other way around, since this makes the Respondent look like it is a cybersquatter actively seeking to extort a trademark owner. Panels should always be vigilant in carefully examining the evidence of pre-dispute solicitations in order to ensure that they have been properly portrayed.
‘Panel is Not a General Domain Court’
Data Parrot Holdings, LLC v. Christopher Hamoen, WIPO Case No. DAI2024-0072
<dataparrot .ai>
Panelist: Mr. Martin Schwimmer (Presiding), Mr. Evan D. Brown and Mr. Gary Saposnik
Brief Facts: The Complainant owns U.S. registration for the mark DATA PARROT, registered on January 21, 2020. It uses the DATA PARROT mark in relation to software as a service (SAAS) featuring software for copying relational data between databases in the field of enterprise software. It maintains a website at <dataparrot .io>. The Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name on March 30, 2023. That same day, he filed a U.S. trademark application for DATA PARROT in relation to software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for analyzing business data and providing insights using AI. He promotes SAAS services at <dataparrot .ai>.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is knowingly and willfully using the disputed Domain Name to promote competing services in a manner designed to exploit confusion with the Complainant’s DATA PARROT mark. The Respondent disputes the Complainant’s assertion that the parties’ respective services are related and further contends that the Complainant has abandoned any rights it may have had in its trademarks; that he has legitimate rights in the disputed Domain Name, as he is making a bona fide offering of services; and he selected the name in good faith.
Held: The Panel finds that, before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed Domain Name or a name correspondent to the disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of services. Specifically, the Complainant asserts that it sent a demand letter to the Respondent on July 14, 2023, however, the Respondent previously had applied to the U.S. Trademark Office for the mark DATA PARROT on the day it registered the disputed Domain Name, namely March 30, 2023. Additionally, the record contains evidence that the Respondent utilizes the disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of services, here using the term “bona fide” to mean “real” as opposed to “sham”. The Respondent’s website and social media presence are consistent with that of a real public business.
In sum, in order to prevail under Paragraph 4(c), the Respondent may not intentionally infringe the trademark rights of the Complainant. The Complainant has not unequivocally established the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights prior to his registration of the disputed Domain Name. While DATA PARROT is claimed to be arbitrary in relation to the Complainant’s services, it is not so unique that independent adoption is impossible. However, the Complainant alleges that due to identical trademarks, related goods and services, and instances of actual confusion, the Respondent’s use of the disputed Domain Name is infringing. Whether or not that is the case, evaluating the Complainant’s claim would require the Panel to make findings as to, inter alia, the strength of the Complainant’s trademark and the channels of trade of the parties’ respective services.
This Panel is not a general domain name court, and the Policy is not designed to adjudicate all disputes of any kind that relate in any way to domain names. Rather, the Policy is narrowly crafted to apply to a particular type of abusive cybersquatting.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: MLO., United Kingdom
Respondent’s Counsel: ESQwire .com PC, U.S.
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: Bravo to the Panel for correctly differentiating between a UDRP case suitable for resolution as a result of cybersquatting, and a more complex dispute involving trademark infringement that is suitable for resolution by the courts.
As noted in UDRP Perspectives at 0.19, trademark infringement and cybersquatting, while related, are distinguishable. Cybersquatting requires intent, whereas trademark infringement does not. Trademark infringement may exist even where there is no awareness of a Complainant’s mark nor intent to infringe upon it.
Unintentional trademark infringement is outside of the scope of the UDRP. Intentional trademark infringement is within the scope of the UDRP but may raise complex legal issues that may make the dispute inappropriate for resolution under the UDRP. A Panel may also find that the determination as to whether the alleged trademark infringement is intentional or unintentional requires a level of evidentiary inquiry that makes the dispute inappropriate for resolution under the UDRP.
A Respondent who merely happens to use a domain name that is identical or similar to a Complainant’s trademark – even for identical goods or services, may be infringing, but may not be cybersquatting, if the Respondent did so unknowingly, i.e. without any intent to specifically target the Complainant’s trademark.
Panels must require that a Complainant adequately demonstrates through evidence, that the Respondent intentionally targeted the Complainant’s trademark specifically. For example, where parties are in different jurisdictions or where a Complainant’s mark is not well known, a Complainant will generally need to provide evidence that it was nevertheless, the intended target of the Respondent – rather being the unintended victim of unintentional trademark infringement.
Where a dispute involves competing claims of trademark or other rights – even where trademark infringement may exist – Panels should exercise caution in ensuring that the case is appropriate for resolution under the UDRP – as the Panel did here. While the UDRP is suitable for clear cases of cybersquatting, it was not intended to provide a route around trademark infringement court actions, particularly where there is a genuine issue of whether the Respondent can lawfully use the Domain Name as a result of, for example, defenses available in court that are not available in the UDRP. Moreover, such cases may involve complex and nuanced factual and legal determinations that are unsuitable for resolution under the UDRP.
Respondent Registered Typo of Dictionary Word
Leather Wallet, LLC v. Solomon Adebamiji, Real Ape Club, WIPO Case No. D2024-4777
<leathaer .com>
Panelist: Ms. Marina Perraki
Brief Facts: The Complainant operates in the field of decentralized finance, including providing digital wallet services for the management of digital financial assets, tokens and collectables. The Complainant provides its services under the Leather brand and operates its website at <leather .io>. The Complainant launched its Leather service on August 31, 2023, and has offered its services under its mark since then. The Complainant owns trademark registrations for LEATHER including the EU trademark registration filed on May 3, 2023, and registered on September 2, 2023.
The Domain Name was registered on March 4, 2024, and at the time of filing of the Complaint led to a website that was mimicking that of the Complainant, being an almost identical mirror of the website of the Complainant, using the Complainant’s trademarks and format. The users were made to believe that they were using the Complainant’s service with the risk of entering their login credentials to their digital wallets. Per the Complaint, the contact and support page on the Website were removed. The Domain Name currently leads to an inactive website. The Respondent did not file a Response.
Held: The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. The Panel finds that the addition of the letter “a” between the “h” and the “e” is a misspelling of Complainant’s trademark and that such domain names are considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. The Panel further finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for the illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.
The Panel also concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the LEATHER mark had been used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by the Respondent, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had the Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name. As regards bad faith use of the Domain Name, the Complainant has demonstrated that the website at the Domain Name mimics that of the Complainant, prominently displaying the Complainant’s registered trademark, thereby giving the false impression that it is operated by the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud constitutes bad faith.
Transfer
Complainant’s Counsel: Coates IP, United States of America
Respondent’s Counsel: No Response
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: At first glance, it may be confusing that a typo of a dictionary word domain name was transferred, but in the circumstances of this case it was justified. As noted in UDRP Perspectives at 2.4, where a domain name is descriptive or generic such as a dictionary word, the first person to register it in good faith is entitled to the domain name and this is considered a “legitimate interest.” But as aforesaid, even registration of a dictionary word needs to be in good faith. In this particular case, the evidence was that the Domain Name was registered and used for the purpose of mimicking the Complainant’s website, thereby clearly demonstrating that the Domain Name was not registered simply because it was a coincidental typo of a common dictionary word, but rather to target the Complainant.
Of course, the Respondent in this case didn’t actually register a dictionary word, but a typo of one. Typos of dictionary words can be OK – again – if they are registered in good faith. For example, in Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Administrator, Domain / Vertical Axis, Inc., Forum Claim Number: FA1104001383694, the disputed domain name was “Natiional .com” (with two “i”s). There the unanimous Panel held that “a respondent is free to register a domain name consisting of misspelling of common terms where there is little or no other evidence of the elements of “bad faith” and particularly where there is no evidence that Respondent had another party or its trademark in mind when it registered the “typo” domain name”.
Did the Asking Price Show Good Faith?
General Dynamics Corporation v. mehmet sahin, NAF Claim Number: FA2412002129316
<generaldynamics .net>
Panelist: Mr. Alan L. Limbury
Brief Facts: The Complainant is a global aerospace and defense company that specializes in high-end design, engineering and manufacturing to deliver state-of-the-art solutions to its customers. The Complainant is a publicly traded company (NYSE: GD) and one of the largest defense contractors to the U.S. government. The Complainant and its predecessors and affiliates have used the well-known GENERAL DYNAMICS marks since at least as early as 1952. The Complainant’s official website is located at <generaldynamics .com> (used for over 25 years), which redirects to <gd. com>.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the domain name resolves to a page offering the domain name for sale for US $3,000. There is simply no explanation for a third party to register a domain name that comprises the Complainant’s well-known international brand and offer it for sale, except the intention to capitalize on the Complainant’s reputation in its mark.
The Respondent contends that GENERAL DYNAMICS is a fully generic well-known and established math topic and not a fanciful word at all. The Respondent further contends that he didn’t know a company named General Dynamics when registering this domain name and that it is fully legitimate to try to sell a generic domain via public listing (not bad faith). The Complainant in its additional submission pointed out that the Respondent has an apparent history of other UDRP cases filed against it (citing WIPO Case No. D2024-2502, Case No. D2024-1468, Case No. D2023-0947, and Case No. D2023-2238), involving well-known marks like TRAVELEX and IBM.
Held: The Panel accepts that the Complainant’s GENERAL DYNAMICS mark, albeit well-known and distinctive in the Complainant’s field of activities, is a combination of two common generic words, capable of use otherwise than as a trademark in the Complainant’s field of activities. Further, the buying and selling of domain names has become an established practice in the years since the introduction of the Policy and is not per se a violation of the Policy (See The Clash of Trademarks and Domain Names on the Internet by Gerald M. Levene). The Panel considers Respondent’s asking price for the domain name of US $3,000 does not demonstrate targeting of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that, before any notice to the Respondent of this dispute, the Respondent has used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services by offering the domain name for sale to the general public for an asking price of US $3,000.
Although that asking price was most likely in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs, US $3,000 is unlikely to reflect the greater value to the Complainant or one of its competitors of the domain name. Accordingly, the Panel is not satisfied that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, nor to capitalize on the Complainant’s reputation in its mark. The Complainant further points to a pattern of the Respondent’s cybersquatting to confirm the Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the Domain Name. In D2024-2502, the Respondent’s asking price was US $20,000, while the other three cited cases are not relevant to paragraph 4(b)(i). The Panel is not prepared to find that the Respondent acted in bad faith in this case merely because it has been found to have done so in previous cases.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: Michael Justus of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, District of Columbia, USA
Respondent’s Counsel: Self-represented
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: It has long been controversial for Panelists to use the asking price of a disputed domain name as the basis for finding bad faith, absent other factors. As Nat Cohen writes in his CircleID article “When a UDRP Panel Infers Bad Faith From an Asking Price” (July 14, 2024), “most UDRP panelists have no expertise in domain name valuations…Domain name valuation is challenging even for the most experienced domain name investors”. In this particular case however, the Panel did not use the asking price to infer bad faith, but did the opposite, i.e. determined that the relatively low asking price suggested that the Domain Name was not registered to sell to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant: “Although that asking price was most likely in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, USD 3,000 is unlikely to reflect the greater value to Complainant or one of its competitors of the domain name”.
Nevertheless, to what extent and when should an asking price be used as evidence of good faith or even bad faith registration? You can read a discussion of this and related questions in the CircleID article. You can also read about the case of Lambo .com, which was won by Lamborghini both in a UDRP and in a subsequent court action after the Respondent listed the Domain Name for sale for as high as $75 million.
Panel: ‘Pharma and Nutra’ – Common Prefixes in Specialized Industries, Making an Obvious Choice
PHARMANUTRA S.P.A. v. Domain Administrator, DomainMarket .com, WIPO Case No. D2024-4579
<pharmanutra .com>
Panelist: Mr. Adam Taylor
Brief Facts: The Complainant, an Italian nutraceutical and pharmaceutical company, has traded under the mark PHARMANUTRA in Italy since 2003, and abroad since 2013. The Complainant owns a number of registered trademarks for PHARMANUTRA including the Italian trade mark, filed on April 28, 2011, and registered on July 28, 2011. The Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name on September 26, 2011, and it currently resolves to a website with a “DomainMarket .com / Claim Your Brand” logo, listing the disputed Domain Name as a “premium domain” for sale, with a “Request Price” button. Following a request by the Complainant about the price for the disputed Domain Name, the Respondent emailed the Complainant on June 10, 2024, indicating that the price was US $294,888. Subsequent discussions led the Respondent to make a final offer of US $180,000 for the disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent, which had the Complainant’s mark in mind at the time, registered the disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling the disputed Domain Name to the owner of the identical trade mark, namely the Complainant, “in order to speculate and obtain the highest price”. The Respondent contends that its registration of the disputed Domain Name was an obvious combination of two generic and descriptive prefixes or abbreviations representing the convergence of the pharmaceutical industry and nutrition. The Respondent further contends that it registered the Domain name in connection with its legitimate business of reselling premium domain names and that has bought and sold hundreds of domain names over the past 17 years that start with the prefixes “pharma” or “nutra” prefix.
Held: The Complainant has not convinced the Panel that, on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name on September 26, 2011, with the Complainant in mind. While on the face of it “pharmanutra” might seem like a somewhat distinctive name, the Respondent has established that “pharma” and “nutra-” are common prefixes denoting the pharmaceutical and nutrition industries, and that the combination of these terms in the disputed Domain Name was a reasonably obvious choice. Further, the Panel does not find that the Complainant’s earlier registration of <pharmanutra .it>, the pre-existence of the Complainant’s Italian trademark, or the availability of online searches for Italian trademarks, helps their case without evidence of significant fame by 2011. The Complainant has not provided any evidence of substantial fame or other reasons why the United States-located Respondent should have considered searching the database of Italian trademarks before registering the disputed Domain Name.
Furthermore, the Panel considers that neither the fact that the Respondent has offered the disputed Domain Name for sale, nor the manner in which the Respondent has gone about doing so, indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed Domain Name for sale to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. In the Panel’s view, the level of price sought by the Respondent for the disputed Domain Name does not by itself indicate that the Respondent was out to target the Complainant. Rather, in the circumstances of this case, the Panel believes that the (six-figure) price tag was more likely a feature of the Respondent’s assessment of the value of the disputed Domain Name, including its likely attractiveness to the pharmaceutical/nutraceutical industries as a whole, rather than evidence of a specific focus on the Complainant. Finally, the Panel rejects the Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent’s landing page constitutes an attempt to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark for the purpose of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Complaint Denied
Complainant’s Counsel: HOFFMAN Law Firm, Italy
Respondent’s Counsel: Brian H. Leventhal, United States
Case Comment by ICA General Counsel, Zak Muscovitch: What more can I say? The Panelist provided a textbook lesson in how to properly evaluate and analyze the evidence, and applied all the right UDRP principles. This case deserves to be studied and bookmarked for future reference. Moreover, it is worth contrasting this case with a comparable case where a different Panelist reached the opposite and wrong conclusion, namely the NutriHealthSystems .com case (Forum, August 23, 2016) which was covered by Domain Name Wire, here.
About the Editor:
Ankur Raheja is the Editor-in-Chief of the ICA’s new weekly UDRP Case Summary service. Ankur has practiced law in India since 2005 and has been practicing domain name law for over ten years, representing clients from all over the world in UDRP proceedings. He is the founder of Cylaw Solutions.
He is an accredited panelist with ADNDRC (Hong Kong) and MFSD (Italy). Previously, Ankur worked as an Arbitrator/Panelist with .IN Registry for six years. In a advisory capacity, he has worked with NIXI/.IN Registry and Net4 India’s resolution professional.