The National Arbitration Forum has resolved disputes involving Univision.tv, Webkinzz.com, Webkniz.com, Weblinz.com and ChocolateKiss.com.
The NAF news release announced that the respondent in each of the three complaints did not have rights to each of the domain names.
The reasons for each of the decisions are below:
- Univision.tv – â€œThe Panel concluded that the domain name is identical to the registered trademark UNIVISION with the addition of the .tv extension. Respondent and registered owner Edmundo Norte could not support his claim of an intent for future use as a parody site and did not demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in Univision.tv. The Panel found that the Respondent offered to sell the domain name for an amount in excess of reasonable development expenses which supports findings of bad faith registration and use. The Complainant successfully established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy and defended its trademark in domain name dispute resolution. On August 16, 2007, Univision.tv was ordered to be transferred to Univision Communications Inc.â€ The decision in this case, Univision Communications Inc. v. Edmundo Norte c/o Harvardhomeboy.com, is available from arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/1000079.htm
- Webkinzz.com – â€œThe panelist found that the three disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the WEBKINZ mark all with slight typographical variations. The panelist went on to find that erroneous variations of Complainant’s WEBKINZ mark are typical of typosquatting — using a website to profit from the mistyping of someone else’s trademark — and prove the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests. Because the Respondent used the websites to generate revenue through pay-per-click advertisements it was found that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith. Ganz proved all three elements required of the ICANN Policy and was granted the rights to Webkinzz.com, Webkniz.com, and Weblinz.com on July 19, 2007.â€ The decision in this case, Ganz v. Texas International Property Associates, is available from arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/991778.htm
- ChocolateKiss.com – â€œThe Panel found that ChocolateKiss.com was confusingly similar to Complainant’s KISSES mark, as the term “chocolate” was simply descriptive of Complainant’s business and the combination of the terms was calculated to suggest the involvement of Complainant. The Panel also found that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because the content displayed on Respondent’s website gave the erroneous impression that it was affiliated with Complainant. Finally, the Panel found that Respondent registered and was using the domain name in bad faith because Respondent was using this implied affiliation with Complainant to attract users to its website for commercial gain. Accordingly, the Panel granted Complainant’s request for a transfer of the domain name on June 8, 2007.â€ The decision in this case, The Hershey Company, Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation and Hershey Canada Inc. v. R Reaves, is available from arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/967818.htm
More information is available from the NAF news release, available from adrforum.com/newsroom.aspx?itemID=1274
A list of recent NAF decisions, with links to the decisions, are available from domain-disputes.com/recent-decisions.htm