When a seller has completed all verifications, we identify them with a checkmark like this.The best way to find out more is to speak directly with the seller.Were here to help.
Flippa does not charge buyers and by making an offer on Flippa youll get access to our post-sales support team. See WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.1. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to depart from this general rule. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Iglasses.Com Rar A RequestOn March 14, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 14 and 15, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its responses, confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing contact information and other details pertaining to the registration. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 9, 2013. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. Factual Background. The disputed domain name is identical to the registered trademark. Rights or Legitimate Interests. Respondent acquired the disputed domain name with the sole interest of reselling the disputed domain name and has no bona fide intent to use the disputed domain name in connection with goods or services. Respondent has made a demand of USD 175000.00 from Complainant to relinquish the disputed domain name to Complainant. Registered and Used in Bad Faith. B. Respondent 1. Identical or Confusingly Similar. Respondents prior registration is documented in the WhoIs printout for the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2002, four year before Complainant filed its application to register the ISHADES mark. In fact, Complainant made an anonymous offer to purchase the disputed domain name for USD 1,500.00 through a third party marketplace. Respondent made a counter-offer of USD 175,000.00, taking into account that the disputed domain name consists of a common word with a trendy prefixi. The Policy sets out examples of circumstances that may evidence a respondents rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, see paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, as well as circumstances that may evidence a respondents bad faith registration and use, see paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar. In fact, the Complaint does not comply with the Policy, which requires that: The complaint. Annex any documentary or other evidence, including. However, Respondent has provided the pertinent information from the U.S. Trademark Office website and concedes that Complainant does own a federal trademark registration for the mark ISHADES. The disputed domain name,, is, in effect (disregarding.com), identical to the mark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (WIPO Overview 2.0), paragraph 2.1 (after the complainant makes a prima facie case, the burden of production to show rights or legitimate interests in the domain name shifts to the respondent). Complainant merely includes the conclusory assertion, unsupported by any facts, evidence, or argument, that Respondent lacks legitimate rights in the disputed domain name. The remaining assertions of the Complaint (reproduced in Section 5.A.2 and 5.A.3 above) relate to the element of bad faithand are equally unsupported. Respondents documentary evidence is hardly obscurethe date Respondent acquired the disputed domain name is found in the WhoIs record and the date that Complainant acquired its trademark rights is found in the U.S. Trademark Office database. Had he not actually known these facts, Complainant could have easily discovered them with minimal due diligence. Further, the Panel finds that Respondent has established rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith. However, the Panels view, consistent with the Consensus View, is that as a general matter, a domain name that is registered before a trademark right has been established cannot be found to have been made in bad faith. See WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.1. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to depart from this general rule. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |