|
Wipo domain Name Dispute Case D2004-0991
|
| bet | 3/4 | | Sana | 21.03.2017 | | Hajmi | 39.5 Kb. | | #987 |
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The primary contention of the Complainant is that the Disputed Domain Name is either identical with, or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WINDOWS trademark. The mere addition of the generic word “mail” to the Disputed Domain Name does not suffice to overcome the objection on this basis.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. It has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any licence to enable it to use the Disputed Domain Name.
There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent has ever been known by the name “Windows Mail”.
The fact that the Respondent is offering services under the Disputed Domain Name is not bona fide use when those services may be offered on behalf of the Complainant’s competitors and where the Respondent is relying upon the use of a domain name which is identical with or confusingly similar to another trader’s trademark.
Finally, the Complainant contends, where the trademark which has been appropriated for the Disputed Domain Name is a famous trademark, it is not one which the Respondent would choose unless it had the intention of inferring a connection with the owner of that trademark, in this case, the Complainant. The result of such an inference would be that consumers will be persuaded to visit the Website. This is evidence of use in bad faith.
In addition, the Complainant has included as exhibit 9 to the Complaint a copy of the uwhois.com entry for the domain name which lists the owner as the same owner as the Respondent. The Complainant contends that this is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
|
| |
