| Introduction |
| Syllabus |
| Discussion |
| Rotisserie |
| Reference |
| Search |
| Help |
| Change Password |
| Forgot Password |
| Feedback (not active) |
| Process | Bad Faith | Rights | Choice of Law |
|
Overview | Decisions |
|
|
1. January 14, 2000 through March 9, 2000
2. March 2, 2000 through April 6, 2000
3. April 7, 2000 through May 5, 2000
4. May 5, 2000 through June 13, 2000
4. June 14, 2000 through July 3, 2000
Mr. Donahey is a member of the panel of neutrals of the World Intellectual Property Organization and the eResolution/Disputes.org consortium, two of the three providers currently certified by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) to hear cases under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Mr. Donahey has served as a panelist in several cases, including The World Wrestling Federation v. Bosman, D99-0001, the first case to be heard under the new policy. Mr. Palaniswamy is a second-year student in the joint program at Harvard Law School, where he is pursuing a J.D. and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, where he is seeking an M.A.. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia, where he received an A.B. in Honors Interdisciplinary Study, and a B.S. in Biochemistry & Genetics. Mr. Palaniswamy has served as a teaching fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and as a research assistant in the Global Intellectual Property Issues Division of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
The most recent batch of cases to be digested, 156 in all, bring the total number digested to date to 568. The recent cases are statistically interesting in that they represent several significant departures from prior trends. While cases in which the respondent has defaulted or in which a response was not considered because of some procedural irregularity has historically run at about 40% of the total cases, in the most recent cases to be digested, the number of cases in which no response was onsidered jumped to 49%. At the same time, the percentage of cases in which the respondent prevailed jumped from the historical 10% range to 17%. Also, the number of cases which cited at least one prior panel decision increased to 32% from its historical percentage of 25%. Parties still chose one person panels over three person panels by a significant margin, 93% to 7%.Two cases suggested that a successful respondent may be subject to a form of double jeopardy, at least where the finding that led to the respondent prevailing was failure to show that the respondent had used the domain name in bad faith: Loblaws, Inc. v. Yogeninternational, ICANN Case No. AF-0164; Sporoptic Pouilloux S.A. v. William H. Wilson, ICANN Case No. D2000-0265. Two other cases suggested new approaches to the resolution of ICANN disputes. The first, Loblaws, Inc. v. Charlo Barbosa, ICANN Case No. AF-0163, suggested a new test re burden of proof and burden of persuasion. The second, Cigna Corporation v. JIT Consulting, ICANN Case No. AF-0174, suggested an “admission by silence” test to be applied against respondents. These four cases merit extended discussion.
In Loblaws, supra, the panel was faced with a case in which the complainant had established that the domain name was confusingly similar to complainant’s mark, and that respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. Because of the extensive use of the mark by complainant in the region in which the Respondent was located, the panel found that the respondent had to have registered the domain name in bad faith. However, the panel agonized over the requirement of bad faith use. The respondent’s domain name resolved to an “under construction” web page. There was no evidence that the respondent had offered the domain name for sale to the complainant or to anyone else. The panel distinguished the situation in the famous Telstra case, since in the case before the panel the respondent had not taken any steps to conceal its identity by providing false information to the registrar. The panel also distinguished Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, ICANN Case No. D2000-0010, since, unlike that case, the respondent had not posted either an advertisement that the domain name was for sale, nor a counter which gave an indication of value. In summary, the panel found that the complainant had not proved that the respondent had used the domain name in bad faith. However, the panel went on to note that the respondent may still be brought before an ICANN panel in the future should circumstances change:
"This decision should not prevent the Complainant from returning to this forum should the Respondent begin using its domain name in some fashion.
The nature of such use would obviously affect the analysis of both the bad faith registration and bad faith use elements of the ICANN Policy, and
could, given the Panel’s findings regarding the first two factors, bring a different result."
In Sporoptic, supra, the domain name at issue was <buyvuarnetsunglasses.com>. The panel had no problem in deciding that the domain name was confusingly similar to complainant’s marks, that respondent had no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name, and that the domain name had been registered in bad faith. Once again, the issue turned on whether the domain name had been used by respondent in bad faith. The panel attempted to access the web site to which the domain name would resolve and found that respondent had not established a web site through use of the name. The panel performed other checks in order to determine that the domain name at issue was not being used to manage email. Accordingly, the panel determined that the complainant had failed to establish that respondent had used the domain name at issue in bad faith. However, once again, respondent found that it had not escaped the reach of the ICANN procedure into the future:
"It seems fair to add that Complainant did not waste its time by submitting this case. The decision will go on record to state that the domain name
was registered in bad faith and that any use of it would necessarily be in bad faith. That decision, when served upon the Respondent, may serve as a
warning to him not to “use” the domain name in any way. The findings of this panel may also assist future Panels in deciding a case that Complainant
would be free to submit again under the Policy (since circumstances of fact will in fact no longer be the same) should Respondent start any form of
“use” of the domain name in the future."
In Loblaws, supra, the panel was faced with a situation in which no appearance had been made by respondent, but that complainant had failed to establish
by factual evidence all of the three required elements. The panel suggested a novel approach in such situations:". . . [T]his Panelist rejects the literal interpretation of ICANN Policy and Rules because, by punishing complainants for failing to proffer evidence
that is unavailable to them and creating an incentive to respondents, particularly those without meritorious defenses, to gain tactical advantage by
evading their obligation to respond, it is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of ICANN Policy to create an efficient and fair dispute resolution
procedure. An alternative interpretation, [sic] is to distinguish between the burden of proof in the sense of the burden of persuasion and the burden
of production and allow for the shifting of the latter. Under this approach, once a complainant produces sufficient evidence that the contested
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark or service mark, the burden of production should shift to the
respondent to introduce evidence demonstrating its rights to and legitimate interest in the domain name, as well as its good faith in registering and
using it. If the respondent meets this burden of production, then the burden shifts back to the complainant to rebut the respondent’s evidence. If,
on the other hand, the respondent either submits no response or its response presents insufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of production, a
finding of the absence of right, or legitimate interest , or good faith on the part of the respondent becomes compelled as matter of law, rather than
merely permitted as an inference. Placing the burden of production on elements two and three on respondents is fully consistent with ICANN Rule
5(i), which requires a respondent to submit affirmative evidence and not merely deny complainant’s allegations."
In Cigna Corporation, supra, the panel also suggested a new procedural device for evaluation of the evidence before it: the “admission-by-silence.” The panel found that the respondent’s failure to respond to a letter sent to it prior to the initiation of the ICANN procedure that contained an allegation that the registration of the domain name violated complainant’s trademark rights constituted an “admission-by-silence” of the allegation and the establishment that respondent had no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name at issue. In the same letter, complainant stated that “[w]e request that you immediately cease and desist from any further use of the domain and immediately cancel the domain registration.” The panel found that “[a] reasonable person confronted with the implication that it is using a registered domain name within the context of a ‘cease and desist’ letter would be moved to respond with a correction or denial if such implication were untrue. [Respondent’s] failure to respond acts as an “admission-by-silence” that it is using the domain name. Without evidence to the contrary, this admission is enough to find the domain name to be ‘in use.’” The panel went on to find that [respondent’s] admission (by its silence) to using the domain name, and further like admission that it is violating [complainant’s] trademark rights, are sufficient, absent evidence to the contrary, to show that [the domain name at issue] has been registered and is being used in ‘bad faith.’”The following is the digest of the recent cases.
412. Anne of Green Gables Licensing Authority,
Inc., v. Internetworks, AF-0109
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Perry M. Amsellem
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <anneofgreengables.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
413.
American Media Operations, Inc. v. Simons, AF-0134
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Henri Alvarez
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <wwwnationalenquirer.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 14(a), 14(b), 15(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Brookfield Communications
Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F 3rd 1036 (9th Cir. 1999)
414.
Loblaws, Inc. v. Yogeninternational, AF-0164
a.
Date:
June 9, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Kevin W. Grierson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <presidentschoicesocks.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): “Based upon both the number of Complainant's registered marks
and the breadth of goods and services covered by those marks, and
in the absence of any showing that the Respondent has any rights in the
domain name, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interest in the domain name presidentschoicesocks.com.”
Distinguishes from prior decisions that have found bad faith in passive
use.
Following Canadian law, Panel interprets Policy based on extrinsic evidence
of framer’s intent. No double jeopardy protection—“[t]his decision
should not prevent the Complainant from returning to this forum should
the Respondent begin using its domain name in some fashion.”
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
British Travel Agents Ltd. v. Sterling Hotel Group Ltd., D2000-0086; Telstra
Corporation Limited v. Nuclear
Marshmallows, D2000-0003; Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors,
D2000-0010;.
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: R v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R.
688
415.
Loblaws, Inc. v. Presidentchoice.Inc/Presidentchoice.com, AF-0170(a)(b)(c)
a.
Date:
June 7, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jessica Litman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <presidentchoice.com, presidentchoice.net,
presidentchoice.org>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Filing complaint without evidence of Respondent’s bad faith
registration or use and without proper investigation “is indicative of
bad
faith” (regarding a charge of reverse domain name hijacking). UDRP
not designed to prevent dilution of famous marks—only reaches bad faith
registrations where there is no legitimate interest.
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 12, 15(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Kittinger Company v. Kittinger Collector, AF-0107; Meredith Corp. vs. CityHome,
Inc., D2000-0223;
Microcell Solutions v. B-Seen Design Group, AF-0131; Shirmax Retail Ltd.
v. CES Marketing Group Inc., AF-0104; Breakthrough
Software, Inc. v. Hendrick Huigen, AF-0122; Interep National Radio Sales,
Inc. v. Internet Domain Names, Inc., D2000-0174.
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
416. Cigna Corp. v. JIT Consulting, AF-0174
a.
Date:
June 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Paul Michael DeCicco
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cignadirect.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): Respondent’s failure to answer Complainant’s “letter
of November 1, 2000 [sic]” constitutes an admission of the allegations
therein.
By registering a domain name that infringes on the rights of a third party,
Respondent breaches its agreement with the Registrar—thereby
“divest[ing] [Respondent] of any rights or interests in the subject domain
name. For this reason alone, the Panel finds that [Respondent] has no right
or legitimate interest in the domain name ‘cignadirect.com’.” A pattern
of registration does not equal a pattern of deprivation. Rejects
doctrine of
Passive Bad Faith Use as discussed in Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallow,
but accepts “admission-by-silence.”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003.
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
417. Fibrocap, Inc. v. Vanseo International,
Ltd., AF-0184
a.
Date:
June 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Kevin Trock
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <spacekap.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5(e)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
418. Angus Chemical Co. v. National Event
Photography, AF-0215
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Joel R. Reidenberg
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <nitrofuel.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 5(a), 14(a), 14(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
419. Shultz v. Leo, FA0003000094359
a.
Date:
April 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <turqoisebuffalo.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
420. General Media Communications,
Inc. v. JMR Creations, FA0004000094387
a.
Date:
June 1, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
John A. Bender
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <penthouse.net>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited:
2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
421. Hudson Optical Corp.
v. Purchasepro.com, FA0004000094418
a.
Date:
May 31, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson, Robert R. Merhige, Jeffrey M. Samuels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <eyevantagemarketplace.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): Dissent: “[R]egistration of a mark constitutes constructive
notice of the registrant's claim of ownership thereof (see 15 U.S.C.§
1072),
the mere filing of an application has no such effect”
f.
Result: Name Transfer, Dissent Filed
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes and Statutes cited: 15 U.S.C.§
1072
422. Hewlett-Packard Co.
v. Zuccarini, FA0004000094454
a.
Date:
May 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gilbert T. Cave
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <hewlitpackard.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
423. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
& Co. v. Hussain, FA0004000094449
a.
Date:
May 31, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson, H. Curtis Meanor, Nelson A. Diaz
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <msdwprivateequity.com, msdwpe.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
424. Wells v. Eleven Entertainment, FA0004000094453
a.
Date:
June 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard DiSalle
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <royalheirs.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
425. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. v. Bulldog, Inc., FA94427
a.
Date:
May 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Alan Crary
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <statefarmcatteam.com, statefarmhail.com, statefarmhailrepair.com,
statefarmhailteam.com, statefarmsavings.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes and Statutes cited: ACPA
426. Kinko’s, Inc. v.
eToll, Inc. f/k/a E Corp, FA94447
a.
Date:
May 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Alan Crary
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <kinkosoffice.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
427. Sports Car World, Inc. v. Cracknell,
FA0004000094448
a.
Date:
May 31, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Herman D. Michels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sportscarworld.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
428. Safway Steel Products, Inc. v. Café
Au Lait, FA94631
a.
Date:
May 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Alan Crary
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <safeway.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 5(a), 14(a), 14(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
429. Travelocity.com LP v. Ten Travel,
FA94632
a.
Date:
May 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
R. Glen Ayers, Jr.
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <prevuetravel.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes, but not formally compliant
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
430. Kasparov v. American Computer Co.,
FA0004000094644
a.
Date:
May 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
John A. Bender
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue:
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
431. Afterimage Studios, Inc. v. Applewood
Publishing, FA0004000094643
a.
Date:
May 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
John A. Bender
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <bulkmale.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
432. Strombecker Corp. v. Just Service,
Inc., FA94450
a.
Date:
May 31, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
R. Glen Ayers, Jr.
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <strombecker.com
d.
Response?:
Yes, not in compliance, but accepted
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a), 5(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Lanham Act
433. CMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Bottai, FA0004000094661
a.
Date:
May 31, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Herman D. Michels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <chuckberry.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
434.
Upstream v. The Simple Solution LLC, FA0004000094451
a.
Date:
June 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Nelson A. Diaz
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <enchilada.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent (typo on NAF index)
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
435. V Secret Catalogue, et al. v. PM Websites,
FA94652
a.
Date:
June 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Karl V. Fink, Nelson A. Diaz, James A. Carmody
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <victoriasecret.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
436. Brite-Lite, Inc. v. Von Wolf FX, FA0004000094641
a.
Date:
June 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard B. Wickersham
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <britelite.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
437. Accu Weather, Inc. v. Global Net 2000,
Inc., FA0004000094645
a.
Date:
June 1, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard B. Wickersham
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <acuweahter.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 2(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
438. Exec-U-Net, Inc. v. Exec-U-Net, FA0004000094639
a.
Date:
June 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard DiSalle
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <exec-u-net.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s): “Respondent’s knowledge of the use of the name and trademark
before selecting her company’s name is a clear indication of her bad
faith and a willful disregard of the complainant’s trademark.”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
439. Miadora, Inc. v. Gemkey America Corp.,
FA0004000094650
a.
Date:
May 30, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Karl V. Fink
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <meadora.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
440.
Pricegrabber.com v. O’Connor, FA0004000094651
a.
Date:
June 5, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Charles K. McCotter
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <pricegrabber.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes, but late
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
441. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. v. Life En Theos, FA0004000094663
a.
Date:
June 1, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Richard Wickersham
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <statefarmcustomerservice.com, statefarm-insurance.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 3(b), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes and Statutes cited: 15 U.S.C. §1125
442. UFCW International Union v. Union Automation,
FA0004000094665
a.
Date:
June 8, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James A. Carmody
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ufcw.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes, but not timely
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
443. Schimpff v. Sumpton, FA0003000094333
a.
Date:
June 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Irving H. Perluss
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <bassets.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d),
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes and other sources cited: McCarthy,
Traders and Unfair Competition; Nutri/System v. Con-Stan Indus., Inc.
(9th Cir. 1987) 809 F.3d 601, 605; Webster’s Third New International Dictionary,
Unabridged (1959); Lanham Act; Creager v. Russ Togs,
Inc. (CD Cal. 1982) 218 USPQ 582; Trademark Dilution Act of 1996
444. Hudson Optical Corp. v.
Vision Corp., FA0004000094415
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Anthony J. Mercorella; Charles K. McCotter, Jr.; Neil Smith
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <eyevantage.com, eyevantage.net, eyevantage.org>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
445. The Aarque Companies v. Aarque Graphics,
FA0004000094669
a.
Date:
June 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Bruce E. Meyerson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <aarque.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
446. Expressdata Corp. v. MSM Express Data
Services, FA94721
a.
Date:
June 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Karl V. Fink
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <expressdata.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
447. The North Face Inc. v. SAND WebNames
– For Sale, FA94722
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Alan Crary
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <northface.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
448. National Cable Satellite
Corp. v. Black Sun Surf Co., FA94738
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
James Alan Crary
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <cspan.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 5(e), 14(a), 14(b)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
449. The Hain Food Group and Celestial Seasonings,
Inc. v. MIC, FA0005000094729
a.
Date:
June 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
William H. Andrews
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <haincelestial.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a), 14
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
450. Hollywood Casino Corp. v. B.F. LLC,
FA0005000094733
a.
Date:
June 16, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Bruce E. Meyerson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <casinohollywood.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
451. Referee Enterprises, Inc.
v. Planet Ref, Inc., FA0004000094707
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Theodore R. Kupferman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ereferee.com, ereferee.net, ereferee.org>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
452. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA0005000094730
a.
Date:
June 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Theodore R. Kupferman
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <statfarm.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
453. Kessler Rehabilitation Corp.
Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Santos, FA0005000094789
a.
Date:
June 12, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Robert T. Pfeuffer
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <kesslerinstitute.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
454. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. v. Pierce, FA0005000094808
a.
Date:
June 6, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Bruce E. Meyerson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <statefarmjobs.com, statefarmcareers.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a), 15
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
455. Zale Delaware Inc. v. Tedesco, FA0005000094799
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Robert R. Merhige, Jr.
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <baileybanksandbiddle.com, gordonsjewelers.com,
gordonsjewelers.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
456. The Denver Post Corp. v. Home in USA,
FA0005000094792
a.
Date:
June 15, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Robert R. Pfeuffer
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <thedenverpost.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
457. Daniel Galvin, Hair Colour Consultants
Ltd., Daniel Galvin Productions Division Ltd., and Daniel Galvin Ltd. v.
Reliablemarketing,
FA0005000094802
a.
Date:
June 20, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Herman D. Michels
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <danielgalvin.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
458. State Farm Mutual Automobile v. HPR,
FA0005000094829
a.
Date:
June 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Irving H. Perluss
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <likeagoodneighborstatefarmisthere.com,
andlikeagoodneighborstatefarmisthere.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: 15 U.S.C. s.1125(c);
Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy;
Panovision Intern. L.P. v. Toeppler (9th Cir. 1998) 141 F.3d 1316, 1324-1325
459. Accu-Find Internet Services v. AccuFind,
FA0005000094831
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Gilbert T. Cave
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <accufind.com, accufind.net>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Decision for Respondent
g.
Policy cited: 4(a)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions and statutes cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes and statutes cited: None
460. Dickey-john Corp. v. Sensor-1,
Inc., FA0005000094835
a.
Date:
June 21, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Daniel B. Banks, Jr.
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <dickeyjohn.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(b), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
461. Johnson & Johnson v. Ethnor.com,
FA0005000094862
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Robert R. Merhige
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <ethnor.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
462. Commercial Publishing Co.,
Inc. v. Webicons, Inc., FA0005000094825
a.
Date:
June 21, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Daniel B. Banks
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <thelawerslist.com>
d.
Response?:
Not formally sufficient
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: None
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 4(i)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
463. Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. Chisholm
Internet Consultants, FA0005000094854
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Daniel B. Banks, Jr.
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <usmoneymart.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(c), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
464. Geddes v. Carmony, FA0005000094866
a.
Date:
June 19, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Ralph Yachnin
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <anngeddes.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(i)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 4(d), 5(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
465. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Co. v. Zazza, FA0005000094865
a.
Date:
June 22, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Jonathan Hudis
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <likeagoodneighbor.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Sandy Frank Entertainment, Inc. v. Law Street, Inc. a/k/a Wall Street,
Inc., FA0002000093669
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Brookfield Communications,
Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999);
Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied,
368 U.S. 820 (1961); Data Concepts Inc. v. Digital
Consulting Inc., 150 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 1988)
466. Texaco, Inc. v. Texaco
Domain Canada, FA0005000094869
a.
Date:
June 27, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Paul A. Dorf
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <texacocanada.com>
d.
Response?:
Yes
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: None
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
467. Interactive Media Group
(Canada) Ltd. v. Café au Lait, FA0005000094893
a.
Date:
June 28, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Carolyn Marks Johnson
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <telepersonals.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited:
4(a), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a), 14
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA94637; America Online, Inc.
v. QTR Corp., FA92016;
Marriott International, Inc. v. Café au Lait, FA93670; Youtv v.
Mr. Erkan Alemdar, FA94243
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: Board of Regents v. Stinson-Head,
Inc., 504 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
468. Sappi, Ltd. v. Croeser,
FA94894
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
Louis E. Condon
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <sappi.org, sappi.net>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s):
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited: 4(a), 4(b) 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited: None
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
469. Telular Corp. v. Smart Call, FA0005000094899
a.
Date:
June 26, 2000
b.
Panelist(s):
R. Glen Ayers
c.
Domain Name(s) at Issue: <phonecell.com>
d.
Response?:
No
e.
Principle(s): “Even though the Respondent acknowledges use of the
Complainant’s mark on its site (“Phonecell is a registered trademark of
Telular Corp. Full acknowledgement to Telular & their trademark is
given here.”), this recognition, in small print at the bottom of the site,
is not
enough to overcome the infringement upon the Complainant’s mark.”
f.
Result: Name Transfer
g.
Policy cited:
4(a), 4(b), 4(c)
h.
Uniform Rules cited: 2(a)
i.
Panel Decisions cited:
Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA94637; Hydraroll Limited v.
Morgan Corp., FA 94108
j.
Judicial decisions and statutes cited: None
470. National Moving Network,
Inc. v. American Van Lines, FA94872
<