The Complainant was the owner of the registered CASEWARE trade-mark. The Complainant had previously owned the domain name in dispute for eleven years, but due to human error had let the registration lapse. The Registrant registered the disputed domain name and resolved it to a website showing competing products.

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 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.

On the issue of confusion, the Panel held that the Complainant had rights in the CASEWARE trade-mark by virtue of being the owner of the corresponding Canadian trade-mark registration. The Panel concluded that the registered trade-mark was confusingly similar with the domain name as they were virtually identical and the Complainant had used the domain name for eleven years prior.

The Panel also held that the domain name had been registered in bad faith. In particular, the Panel found that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant. The Panel's conclusions were based on the Registrant's admission that he was interested in selling the domain name to other interested parties, the use of the website to point to competitors of the Complainant, and the Registrant's unwillingness to disclose a good faith motive.

Finally, the Panel held that the Registrant did not have any legitimate interest in the domain name as per paragraph 3.6 of the Policy.