Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Candela
Corporation v. Orion
Claim Number: FA0201000104191
PARTIES
Complainant
is Candela Corporation, Boston, MA (“Complainant”) represented by Heather
E. Balmat, of Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP. Respondent is Orion, Bologna, ITALY
(“Respondent”) represented by Faffaella Pelosio.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <candelalaser.com>, registered with Network
Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to
the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict
in serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
G. Gervaise Davis, III as sole Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”)
electronically on January 31, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 4, 2002.
On
February 5, 2002, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <candelalaser.com> is registered with Network
Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the
name. Network Solutions, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. registration
agreement and has thereby
agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by
third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the “Policy”).
On
February 7, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of February 27, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the
Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent
via e-mail, post and fax, to all
entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical,
administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@candelalaser.com by
e-mail.
A timely response was received and
determined to be complete on February 25, 2002.
On March 6, 2002,
pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed G. Gervaise Davis III, as sole Panelist.
RELIEF
SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name
be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’
CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Complainant
is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 1,649,891 for the mark CANDELA for use in
connection with Scientific lasers and
capacitive charging power supplies
thereof, in Class 9; and Medical lasers and capacitive charging power supplies
and parts thereof,
in Class 10.
Complainant started using its mark in 1971 and has used the mark
continuously since then in connection with the goods and services
described
above.
Additionally, Complainant owns trademark
registrations for the Mark in many foreign jurisdictions, including the
European Community
(Reg. No. 210,302 – Class 10), France (Reg. No. 1,457068 –
Classes 9 and 10), Italy (Reg. No. 542,038 – Classes 9 and 10), Japan
(Reg. No.
2,220,279 – Class 9, Reg. No. 2,251,914 – Class 10, and Reg. No. 2,419,318 –
Class 11), Spain (Reg. No. 1,284,406 – Class
10).
Stern Laser was an authorized Distributor
of the Complainant’s products in the Italian market, until the Complainant
terminated the
relationship in 1994.
Complainant’s current distributor is Michele Bonelli, a former employee
of Stern Laser. On August 30, 1999, the Domain Name was registered in the name of Orion,
with Max Gritti of Stern Laser listed as the Administrative
Contact. At that time, the business relationship
between Stern Laser and Candela had been terminated for more than five
years.
Complainant first learned that Respondent
had registered the Domain Name at the American Academy of Dermatology
convention in March
2000. At the
convention, Max Gritti told Michele Bonelli and Complainant’s Vice President of
European Operations that he had registered
the www.candelalaser.com Domain Name and
that it would cost Complainant a large sum to acquire it.
On June 26, 2001, Complainant’s employee
Cyndi Blais (“Blais”) contacted Max Gritti regarding possible transfer of the Domain
Name. In her email, Blais noted that
although Respondent had registered the Domain Name on August 30, 1999, he had
not yet used the site. Ms. Blais
indicated that if Respondent did not intend to do anything with the site, she
would be interested in purchasing it on behalf
of Complainant.
In an email response, Max Gritti claimed
that he intended to use the Domain Name for marketing an Italian fireplace
lighter. He went on to say that
Respondent intended to launch the site for this purpose by the end of the
summer, so if Complainant wanted
him to consider selling it instead, it needed
to make an offer right away.
On June 29, 2001 Complainant inquired as
to what Max Gritti considered a reasonable offer. In his response, Max Gritti did not state a specific sum, but
strongly implied that it would only consider an offer “related to the
annual
revenue” of the Complainant. (At the
time, Complainant’s annual revenues were in the range of tens of millions of
dollars.) On November 19, 2001,
Complainant’s authorized distributor Michele Bonelli contacted Max Gritti with
an offer to buy the domain name
for $7,000.
Respondent rejected Complainant’s offer but countered with an offer to
sell the Domain Name for $57,000.
Bonelli rejected this offer.
On November 26, 2001, Bonelli called Max
Gritti in an attempt to negotiate the purchase of the domain name from
Respondent. In this conversation, Max
Gritti indicated that he would give Complainant the Domain Name in exchange for
a SMOOTHBEAM laser manufactured
and sold by Complainant (market value
$49,900).
Complainant has reviewed the web site at
the disputed Domain Name, and Respondent has not yet put the site into
use. Furthermore, Complainant contends
that Respondent does not manufacture or sell the fireplace lighters it claimed
it was going to sell
on the web site, and it has not yet used the Respondent’s
Domain Name as a trademark for any commercial purpose. Thus, it appears that Respondent’s claim
that he intended to use the site to sell fireplace lighters was merely a
pretense intended
to aid him in extracting a high purchase price from
Complainant. The conversations between
Michele Bonelli and Respondent in which Respondent demanded either $57,000 or a
SMOOTHBEAM laser valued
at $49,900 not only further undermine Respondent’s
claim that he was going to use the Domain Name to market a fireplace lighter,
but also clearly demonstrate that Respondent registered the Domain Name either
to keep it out of the hands of the Complainant or
to force the Complainant to
pay a large sum of money for a Domain Name in which Respondent has no
legitimate interest. Both scenarios
constitute bad faith.
COMPLAINANTS GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT
A.
The Domain
Name is Identical or Confusingly
Similar
to the Complainant’s Trademark.
Paragraph 4(a)(i)
Under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy,
the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
Mark. In this case, the first portion
of the Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s CANDELA mark, which has been
in continuous use since
at least as early as 1971 and is the subject of a U.S.
registration and 7 foreign registrations.
Before a corporate name change in 1995 shortened its name to Candela
Corporation, Complainant operated under the name Candela Laser Corporation;
Complainant continues to be commonly identified in the industry as Candela
Laser. Complainant clearly has common
law rights in the mark “Candela Laser,” which is identical to the Domain Name,
and the Domain Name
therefore also meets the criterion of being identical to
Complainant’s Mark.
B. Respondent
Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in Respect
Of
the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(a)(ii).
As required under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of
the Policy, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of
the Domain
Name. Paragraphs
4(c)(i)-(iii) set out three factors by which Respondent could make a showing of
legitimacy:
(i)
before any
notice to [Respondent] of the dispute, [Respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable
preparations to use, the domain name or a
name corresponding to the domain name
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii)
[Respondent]…has
been commonly known by the domain name, even if [Respondent] ha[s] acquired no
trademark or service mark rights;
or
(iii)
[Respondent
is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without
intent for commercial gain to misleadingly
divert consumers or to tarnish the
trademark or service mark at issue.
As demonstrated below, not one of these
factors is met with respect to the Domain Name in dispute.
1.
Respondent
has not used the Domain Name, before the dispute, in connection with the bona
fide offering of goods or service.
Paragraph 4(c)(i).
As
of the date of filing of this Complaint, the Respondent had not put the domain
name into operation, although he has owned it for
over two years. Furthermore, despite its claim that it
planned to begin selling an Italian fireplace lighter through the site,
Respondent has not
done so, nor has it proffered any evidence of preparations
to do so. Therefore, Respondent cannot
make a showing of legitimate right or interest under Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the
Policy.
2. Respondent
has not become known by the domain name.
Paragraph
4(c)(ii).
Respondent
has not yet put the Domain Name into operation, and therefore could not have become commonly known by the
domain name. Nor is the domain name
in any way similar to Respondent’s business or individual name. Thus, Respondent cannot make a showing of
legitimate right or interest under Paragraph 4(c)(ii)
of the Policy.
3.
Respondent is not making noncommercial or fair use of
the
Domain Name.
Again,
Respondent has not put the Domain Name into operation, despite having
owned
the domain name since August 1999.
Furthermore, to the best of Complainant’s
knowledge, Respondent has not expressed any intention to use the Domain Name for any legitimate noncommercial
or fair use, nor has he made any preparations
to do so.
C,
Respondent Has Registered the Domain Name in Bad Faith. Paragraph 4(a)(iii).
Under Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy,
one of the elements that must be demonstrated is that the Respondent has
registered the domain
name in bad faith. Among the circumstances constituting
bad faith set out in Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, are the following:
(i) circumstances
indicating that [Respondent] has registered or [has] acquired the domain name
primarily for the purpose of selling,
renting, or otherwise transferring the
domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark
or service mark…for
valuable consideration in excess of your documented
out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or …
(iii) [Respondent]
ha[s] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the
business of a competitor…
Respondent’s actions clearly constitute
bad faith under subsection (i).
Respondent bragged to
Complainant’s distributor that he had registered the <candelalaser.com>
domain name and that it would “cost” Complainant
to get it back. Later, Respondent stated it might be willing
to sell it for a price “relating to [Complainant’s] yearly revenue.” Later still, Respondent said he would sell
the Domain Name for $57,000, and when this was rejected, Respondent said he
would give
Complainant the Domain Name in exchange for one of Complainant’s
lasers [with a retail value of $49,000].
All of the foregoing indicates that Respondent’s primary interest in
registering the Domain Name was to force Complainant to pay an
exorbitant sum
of money for a Domain Name to which Respondent had no right.
Respondent has no legitimate interest or
right in the domain name <candelalaser.com> and has registered and
is holding the Domain Name in bad faith for the purposes of extorting money
from the Complainant, preventing
the Complainant from reflecting its mark in
the Domain Name and/or disrupting the business of the Complainant. As long as the Respondent owns the Domain
Name, the possibility exists that Respondent will use it to lure Complainant’s
medical and
cosmetic laser customers to a site about its competitor’s
lasers. The use of the Complainant’s
Mark in the Domain Name for these purposes is a violation of trademark law and
is exactly the type of
conduct the Policy was designed to prevent.
In accordance with Paragraph 4(i) of the
Policy, and for the reasons set forth above, Complainant requests that the
Administrative
Panel appointed in this administrative proceeding issue a
decision that the domain name <candelalaser.com> be transferred to
Complainant. Rule 3(b)(x).
B. Respondent
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The
Registrant of the Domain Name <candelalaser.com> is ORION S.r.l, an Italian limited
liability company that planned in 1999 to produce and launch on the market a
new product, a fireplace lighter.
Mr. Max Gritti is shareholder and Director of Orion S.r.l.
The Domain Name was registered
in August 1999 as part of the business plan to create a commercial web site for
the fireplace lighter.
The
<candelalaser.com> denomination was chosen by Orion S.r.l. after
consultation with an advertising agency in charge of developing the corporate
identity
for the new product (the fireplace lighter) to be launched: “candela”
meaning “candle” in Italian, a term commonly used for referring
to fire. The term “laser” was chosen to be used in
conjunction with the term “candela” as it implies, in its common sense, a new
and efficient
technology.
Orion
s.r.l. claims that they could legitimately register this particular domain name
because of the descriptive and common use of
the term and because the activity
planned were not in competition with the products and services provided by
Complainant.
Orion
S.r.l. contacted an Italian company, Pubblica comunicazione s.n.c., to estimate
the costs of marketing of the fireplace lighter.
In December 2000, Orion
received from Pubblica comunicazione s.n.c. an estimate of the costs.
In June 2001, Ms. Blais emailed Mr. Gritti writing: “I have
noticed that you obtained candelalaser.com
on August 30, 1999” and “I would like to discuss your reserved domain name.” Ms. Blais tried to convince Gritti to make a price
proposal. Mr. Gritti never made an explicit request for any amount.
When Mr. Gritti considered selling the Domain Name,
Ms. Blais acted as if Mr. Gritti had to convince Candela Corporation to
purchase the Domain Name - “we
will do our best to see if we can accommodate it.”
Respondent
believes that Gritti was pressured by Candela in order to induce him to make a
proposal to Complainant in connection with
the sale of the Domain Name. Respondent denies making any proposal. Further, the Respondent claims that the
production and launch of the fireplace lighter was delayed due to financial and
timing constraints.
Respondent
also stressed that the complaint was made against Gritti, based on the
assumption that he acted on behalf of Sternlaser
when registering the Domain
Name. Respondent asserts that Complainant never proved the involvement of
Sternlaser S.p.a.
Respondent
denies that Sternlaser S.p.a. has any right to the Domain Name. Respondent further claims that Complainant
must have known that Gritti was representing Orion S.r.l. when answering Ms.
Blais e-mails.
Mr.
Gritti’s e-mail address (mgritti@sternlaser.com) is the only one he owns and it
is also used for other businesses and personal
purposes, as it is common
practice for many entrepreneurs and in general for users of e-mail addresses.
Respondent
believes that because the Complainant addressed the complaint to Mr. Gritti and
Sternlaser S.p.a. instead of addressing
it to Orion S.r.l., that Sternlaser
S.r.l. was involved without providing evidence of such involvement. Respondent also asserts that this shows bad faith on the part of the Complainant in
the construction of this case.
Respondent
acknowledges that Mr. Gritti is a shareholder of Sternlaser s.p.a.., which
distributes laser machines for cosmetic and
medical use, produced by an
American company which is a competitor of Complainant. Respondent claims that
the burden of proof for
the Complainant may not be met by submitting
declarations recounting conversations between Gritti and Bonelli.
Respondent
claims (in contrast to the Complainant) that when Mr. Gritti met Mr. Bonelli at
the Dermatology Convention held in Washington
in March 2000, it was Mr. Bonelli
who told Mr. Gritti that the Complainant was aware of the registration of the
Domain Name <candelalaser.com>.
Mr. Gritti felt this statement was a menace to his business plan for
Orion S.r.l.’s new product (whose marketing was based on the
Domain Name).
Mr
Gritti reacted exclaiming “It is going to cost you to get it.” This was merely meant to say that if Candela
Corporation was thinking of taking the Domain Name, it would have cost a price
which
would dissuade Bonelli from attempting to obtain the Domain Name.
It
is acknowledged by Respondent that Bonelli called Gritti after Ms. Blais sent
emails to Gritti. But Mr. Bonelli did
not offer directly $7,000 nor did he say that he was doing so on behalf of
Candela Corporation. He asked Mr.
Gritti if his Domain Name “could be worth around $7,000.” Mr. Gritti answered that he did not consider
that fair, and that he was already in touch with Candela Corporation through
Ms. Blais.
Mr.
Gritti also denies that he considered or expressed the intention to exchange
his Domain Name for a laser machine produced by Candela
Corporation, as alleged
by Complainant. Mr. Gritti denies
offering to sell the Domain Name or that he proposed any specific amount of
money.
GROUNDS
FOR DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
A. The
Domain Name is not identical nor confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
[ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)].
Complainant’s
trademark is “Candela”. Respondent
Domain Name is <candelalaser.com>. The term “candela” is the Italian word for “candle”, a very common term used for many other
registered and pending marks and in conjunction with a large variety of
different applications
and products. The object of the Complaint is a
descriptive, non-source identifying domain name. Apart from the basic principle of freedom of expression,
Complainant failed to prove the identity or relevant similarity to his
trademark.
Orion
S.r.l. chose and registered the Domain Name and has a legitimate right to use
it as registrant because Orion S.r.l. considered
the term “candela” for the new
product he intended to launch, a fireplace lighter, because of its immediate
reference to fire. Furthermore, the term
“laser,” in conjunction with “candela,” was considered for its immediate
reference to a modern technology which
implies, in its common sense, an
efficient and well functioning technology. [The Panel does not understand how
these two words “in
its common sense” implies what the Respondent suggests. Lasers are not “candles” and the two appear
to bear no relationship to each other.]
B. Respondent
has full rights and legitimate interests in respect of the Domain name [ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)].
Candela Corporation never advised
Gritti that it doubted his good faith in registering the Domain Name and
Complainant (allegedly)
never considered sending a cease-and-desist letter nor
any other communication to Mr. Gritti.
Respondent
Orion S.r.l. believes it has proven preparation to use the Domain Name in
connection with a bona fide
offering of new goods, completely different and not likely to be confused with
Complainant’s goods and services.
[Respondent does not explain how confusion is unlikely when using the
identical marks.] This is a legitimate
and fair use of the Domain Name, without intent to misleadingly divert
consumers or to tarnish the trademark
of Complainant.
Respondent also refutes Complainant’s
assertion “Furthermore, to the best of Complainant’s knowledge, Respondent has
not expressed any intention to use
the Domain Name for any noncommercial or fair use.” Complainant knew that the Registrant was Orion S.r.l. and that
Mr. Gritti acted on behalf of Orion S.r.l.
Complaint’s statements in the
Complaint seem to Respondent, clear evidence of bad faith.
Complainant seeks to involve
Sternlaser S.p.a. in the complaint, but the only link between Orion S.r.l. as
the Registrant and Sternlaser
S.r.l. is Mr. Gritti, who is incidentally a
shareholder of both companies. Orion
S.r.l. planned a different activity and business compared to the goods and
activities of Complainant, and Respondent feels that
Mr. Gritti has the freedom
of conducting business for different companies without giving rise to
confusion. Complainant apparently
considers it fair to make the Complaint arguing that the actual registrant is
Sternlaser S.p.a.
An admission of this claim would
constitute prejudice not only for Mr. Gritti and Orion S.r.l. but also for
Sternlaser S.r.l., because
it represents one of the competitors of the
Complainant. The attempt made by
Complainant to get Sternlaser S.p.a. involved in the Complaint is without
consequence, because the activity planned
for the Domain Name is not one that
is in competition with the one comprised in the trademark “Candela” registered
by Complainant.
C. The
Domain Name should not be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith. [ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); ICANN Policy ¶
4(a)(iii)].
Complainant has failed to prove the
third element required by ICANN Policy.
There are no circumstances indicating that Respondent has
registered or has acquired 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 that Complainant.
All
evidence submitted by the Complainant proves that Mr. Gritti was induced by
Complainant to consider the sale of the Domain Name. The statement of Mr. Bonelli, apart from all considerations above,
is not evidence of Mr. Gritti’s primary
purpose to sell the Domain Name to Complainant or a competitor nor that
it was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business
of a
competitor. Mr. Gritti’s purpose of
using the domain name to launch a new product was explained, shown, and
admitted by Complainant itself and
proved by Respondent .
DISCUSSION
AND FINDINGS
Paragraph 15(a) of
the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”)
instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint
on the basis of the statements and
documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules
and principles of
law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires
that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain
an order that
a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by the
Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark
in which the Complainant
has rights; and
(2) the Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered
and is being used in bad faith.
Before beginning analysis of each of the
above stated elements, the Panel feels it is appropriate to comment upon the
evidentiary
submissions of the Parties to this action. The Respondent rests a great deal on the
alleged failures of proof offered by the Complainant. While it is completely appropriate to demand that a Complainant
make a showing substantiating its case, it is also required that a
Respondent
make its claims supportable and its case credible. In the instant arbitration the Respondent has utterly failed to
support its somewhat far fetched assertions with any convincing evidence.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
While Complainant has put forth evidence
that it may have a common law trademark in CANDELALASER, the Panel need not
make such a determination
because the Panel finds that the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the CANDELA trademark, which is the subject of U.S.
Registration
No. 1,549,891. It would
be difficult to discern a more logical scenario for a domain name to be
confusingly similar to a trademark than to take a
registered trademark and add
the name of the trademarked goods or services.
The Complainant's registration is for the following goods: scientific
lasers and capacitive charging power supplies thereof, in Class
9; and medical
lasers and capacitive charging power supplies and parts thereof, in Class 10. Respondent’s domain name merely adds the
generic term for Complainant’s product to Complainant’s mark. See
Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower,
Inc., D2000-0022 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2000) (finding that four domain names that
added the descriptive words “fashion” or “cosmetics” after the
trademark were
confusingly similar to the trademark); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar.
5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s
HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type
of business in which Complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain
name out
of the realm of confusingly similarity).
The Complainant has proven this element
to support transfer of the domain name.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The
Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain
because Respondent knew of Complainant’s mark
prior to registering the domain
name. In addition, the Respondent has not put forth any credible evidence of a
legitimate purpose
for use of the name.
Respondent knew of Complainant’s mark prior to registering the domain
name and has a substantial relationship with a direct competitor
of
Complainant.
Respondent contends it chose the Domain
Name to market a fireplace lighter.
Respondent had the opportunity to put forth credible evidence of its
purported business and submitted so little, that the Panel is
not convinced
that the fireplace lighter business was not merely a sham. No matter how desperately the Respondent
argues that Orion, Stern Laser and Max Gritti are separate parties, they are
inextricably
intertwined. Respondent could
have easily provided evidence proving the separateness these three parties and
lack of control of these organizations
by Gritti, but did not do so.
Stern Laser was a former distributor of
Complainant’s goods and is a current distributor of a direct competitor of the Complainants’. Max Gritti is the administrative contact for the domain name, his
listed email address is at sternlaser.com and it is admitted by
Respondent that
he is a shareholder in both Orion (the putative owner of the domain name) and
Stern Laser. The Complainant has proven
this element to support transfer of the domain name.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Respondent
registered the domain name in bad faith because he knew of Complainant’s marks
before registering
the domain name, was directly related to a competitor of
Complainant, and has articulated no legitimate reason for such
registration. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Apr. 17, 2000) (evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge
of commonly known mark
at the time of registration). The argument advanced by the Respondent, that Stern Laser was not
proved to be a real party in interest is unpersuasive. Respondent has acknowledged that Mr. Gritti
is a shareholder in both Stern Laser and Orion, who is listed as the
registrant. The Respondent provided no
evidence or argument for the proposition that Gritti was not a controlling
principal in either organization. The
fact that Mr. Gritti was both a former employee of the Complainant, and now
works for a direct competitor of the Complainant is
telling. The Complainant has proved this element to
support transfer of the domain name.
Based on the evidence set forth above the
Panel finds that the Respondent has used the Domain Name in bad faith because
the Respondent
attempted to sell Complainant the domain name for consideration
in excess of out-of-pocket costs and has made no demonstrable legitimate
use of
the Domain Name.
DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, the panel
orders that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
_
G. Gervaise
Davis, III, Panelist
Dated: April 1, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/487.html