In a rather lengthy decision, the Panel denied the Complainant's request that the impugned domain name be transferred to it. The domain name resolved to a website promoting the wares of a 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"), Complainants must establish three elements. Firstly, the disputed domain name must be confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant had, and continues to have, rights. Secondly, the domain name must have been registered in bad faith. Finally, the Registrant must have no legitimate interest in the domain name.

The Panel held that the Complainant had failed to establish common law rights in the word COVERCRETE. The Panel also remarked on the lack of evidence regarding the chain of title. With respect to the two registered trade-marks being relied upon, the Panel held that the registrations were subsequent to the domain name registration.