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

Sam Ash Music Corporation v. Lamusic, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, CIRA Dispute No. 00067 - by Eric Macramalla

Back to CDRP Cases

Domain Name: samash.ca
OutCome: Transfer Granted
Response Filed: No
Panellist: Cecil O.D. Branson, Q.C.

The Complainant was the owner of the Canada registered trade mark SAMASH Design. The Complainant registered the domain name samash.com . The Complainant operated two websites, www.samashmusic.com and www.samash.ca. Its websites provided information regarding the Complainant's retail locations and offered an array of musical instruments and accessories for sale online.

Once the Registrant had registered its domain name, visitors seeking www.samash.ca were redirected to the Registrant's website, which was the official website for the Registrant's musical 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 as the domain name, was identical to the Complainant's mark.

The registration was found to have been made in bad faith as defined under paragraph 3.7(c) of the Policy, which provides that bad faith will be established if it can be shown that the domain name was registered to disrupt the business of a competitor. Not only was the Registrant a business competitor of the Complainant, offering competing goods and services, the Registrant's domain name had been acquired primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant's business.

The Panel found no legitimate interest in the domain name on the part of the Registrant. The evidence demonstrated that the Registrant had never used the domain name in connection with any wares, services or business and thus could not rely on any of the legitimate interests listed in sub-paragraph 3.6(a), (b), and (c) of the Policy.

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

Back to top...

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