Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
6.221
The Complainant contended that the domain name was identical or confus-
ingly similar to a trade mark in which it had rights, that the Respondent had no
rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and that the
Respondent had registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
i. Identity or confusing similarity
The Panel held that this was satisfied by the Complainant's ownership of a US
registration for the certification word mark 'PARMA HAM', which was
identical to the Respondent's domain name.
6.222
ii. Rights or legitimate interests
In the absence of the assertion of such rights or interests by the Respondent, the
Panellist inferred from this default that such rights or legitimate interests in fact
did not exist.
6.223
iii. Registration and use in bad faith
As regards sub-para 4(b)(i) of the UDRP, the Panellist observed that the file did
not contain any indication that the Respondent had at any time tried to sell the
domain name to the Complainant or a competitor. As regards sub-para
4(b)(iii), it was not alleged that the Respondent and Complainant were
competitors, therefore the registration could not have had the purpose of
disrupting a competitor's business. As regards sub-para 4(b)(iv), as the
Respondent did not use the domain name to designate a website, it did not
appear that it tried to attract consumers by causing a confusion with the
Complainant's company, services or products. Thus, the requirements of sub-
paras (i), (iii) and (iv) were not satisfied in the present case and the Panellist
ruled that the Complainant had not demonstrated that the Respondent had
engaged in a pattern of registering domain names in order to prevent the owner
of trade marks to register them in corresponding domain names.
6.224
6.225
In relation to other circumstances that may constitute evidence that a domain
name was registered or is being used in bad faith, the Complainant referred to
its registered certification mark. The Panellist pointed out that as this mark was
registered only in November 1996, it was quite possible that the Respondent
did not know of this in 1997. Consequently, the Complainant had not satisfied
its burden of proof as far as registration in bad faith was concerned.
