Marketer's wrong moveAugust 10, 2008, 9:40 am (9 years ago)
The latest World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) examination showed that the organization at US-based Sting Marketing Inc discovered they had interrupted a hornet's nest when they attempted to exploit the brand of an industry expert in a domain registration.
Case D2008-0869 reports that the Isle of Man based online gambling software developer and turnkey provider Microgaming protest the registration of the domain casinos-microgaming.com, prompting an adjudication procedure to which the registration did not succeed to reply at any point, therefore losing the case - and the domain.
In a finding scheduled July 22 WIPO authority Alistair Payne arranged to move the domain to Microgaming after a conclusion based on:
1. The Complainant had revealed that the Respondent is not connected to the Complainant and not approved to exploit the Complainant’s trade marks by any means. As the Respondent’s registration took place almost ten years following the Complainant’s first exploit of the MICROGAMING brand, the Panel indicates that the registration of a domain name including such a famous trade mark in the field of online casinos and gaming connected software shared with the evocative and business connected word “casinos” is proof of proposed exploit in bad faith; and
2. The Respondent did not succeed to give details on two events the reasons why he registered the Disputed Domain Name. To begin with, not succeeding to reply to the Complainant’s cease and discontinue letter and secondly by not succeeding to set up a Response in this organizational proceeding. In these situations, the Panel assumes that the Respondent by no means planned any authentic use for the Disputed Domain Name further than the directory website that is at present presented.
For the reasons shown above, the Panel is contented that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. As such, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied.
For all the previous reasons, in agreement with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel regulates that the Domain Name be moved to the Complainant.
The action shows the rising purpose of well recognized and successful online gambling companies to protect the uprightness of their brands.
Comments (0) Back to Top