The Complainant owned registered marks for various marks, including BELL. It was also the owner of the trade names Bell, Bell Canada, Bell Canada Enterprises, Bell Globemedia and Bell Mobility.

The domain name was made to point to rogers.com, a direct competitor of the Complainant.

The Registrant did not file a Response to the Complaint, and accordingly the Complainant elected as per Rule 6(5) of the CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Rules to reduce the three member Panel to a single member Panel.

Under the CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("CDRP"), a successful Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with a mark in which it had rights, that the name was registered in bad faith and that the Registrant does not have a legitimate interest in the domain name.

The Panel held that the Complainant had prior rights in the BELL mark, and that the impugned domain name was confusing with it.

Bad faith was found as per paragraph 3.7(a), namely the domain name was acquired to sell for a profit. The Registrant offered to lease the domain name, or to sell it. While no amount was specified, the indication that it could be purchased or leased qualified as abusive conduct.

As well, bad faith was established as per paragraph 3.7(c), namely, that the registration was intended to disrupt the Complainant, a competitor. While the parties themselves were not direct competitors, the resolution of the domain name to a competitor site was sufficient to satisfy this requirement.

With respect to legitimate interest, the Panel concluded that none of the tests to be applied were satisfied to justify a legitimate interest of the Registrant in the use of the disputed domain name.