Home Internet Briefs UDRP vs. CDRP CDRP Summaries gTLD Update News Contact Us

Honest Ed's Limited v. Imbrogno, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, CIRA Dispute No. 00066 - by Eric Macramalla

Back to CDRP Cases

Domain Name: www.honesteds.ca
OutCome: Transfer Granted
Response Filed: No
Panellist: Harold Margles, Kenneth Gamble, John Lee

The Complainant was the owner of the registered trade mark HONEST ED'S. Despite the fact that the Registrant registered the disputed domain name, none of the evidence filed established that the Registrant carried on business or that the domain name was in use in association with any wares, services or business.

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 domain name was confusingly similar with the Complainant's mark. Save for the apostrophe, the domain name was identical to the Complainant's mark.

The registration was held to have been in bad faith. The Panel concluded that pursuant to paragraph 3.7(a) of the Policy, the Registrant had registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling the registration to the Complainant and that this was his only reason for registering the domain name. The Panel considered surrounding circumstances and drew inferences from the fact that the Registrant was attempting to solicit an offer from the Complainant to purchase the Registrant's domain name for more than the costs incurred in association with the registration. The Registrant's promise to provide particulars of his expenses was deemed to have been a "sham promise" intended to persuade the Complainant to negotiate. It was determined that the Registrant had been seeking a "lucrative" payment on behalf the Complainant.

Further, while the Panel found that the Registrant registered the domain name to disrupt the business of the Complainant under paragraph 3.7(c) of the Policy.

The Panel found no legitimate interest in the domain name on the part of the Registrant. The evidence demonstrated no real use of the domain name.

Accordingly, the Complainant was successful and the domain name was ordered transferred.

Back to top...

© 2022 Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP. All rights reserved.