By Zak Muscovitch.

From the 'Truth is Stranger Than Fiction File', 22 year-old Australian Entrepreneur, Matthew Carpenter, is again demonstrating the value of a good descriptive domain name, by selling his new, yet apparently successful website,, on Flippa. is a website that allows users to purchase an envelope filled with glitter that is sent to one of their enemies for only $9.99. According to Mr. Carpenter, "although the idea is a bit farfetched, it’s caught on in a big way. After being launched on January 12th of this month it has seen over 2,500,000 visitors, received over 415,000 mentions on Facebook & Twitter & has been featured all over the world both online, in print, on the radio, on TV & even on late night talkshows".

According to the Flippa listing, "after being online for only a few hours, the website had received over 2,000 orders generating just over $20,000AUD. Somewhat overwhelmed, I then decided to take the ability to order down despite receiving thousands of emails & tweets from people wanting to purchase". The website reportedly went viral and received "2.5 million visits in 4 days".
According to the website, if you "provide an address anywhere in the world... we'll send them so much glitter in an envelope that they'll be finding that shit everywhere for weeks. We'll also include a note telling the person exactly why they're receiving this terrible gift. Hint: the glitter will be mixed in with the note thus increasing maximum spillage" The website calls glitter "the herpes of the craft world". 

By Zak Muscovitch

The domain name industry is so very fortunate to have a professional like Michael Cyger and his interview series. I was recently interviewed by Michael in Joint Ventures for Domain Name Development – With Zak Muscovitch, and was totally impressed with his professionalism and commitment to fully exploring the issues and providing a genuinely educational interview that will be of enormous use by domain name investors and website developers. As Michael mentioned to me, he has an engineering background, and approached the subject of joint ventures with an engineer's interest is "finding out exactly how things work".

Well, he succeeded in doing just that with this interview. Having gone back and watched it, I surprised myself even, as this was an unprecedented detailed introduction to the issues that arise when putting together a domain name development joint venture. It was an hour long interview, and the time flew by. You can see by the length of the interview, that this was no mere window dressing or promotional video, but rather a real investigation by an interviewer who took time to prepare and investigate the subject before even starting the interview. Congratulations to Michael on creating a real gem in the domain name world, with


By Zak Muscovitch.

According to an NAF Panelist in the recent decision regarding, you have no legitimate interest in a domain name corresponding to your son's name, if you have not used it for a website.

The Respondent in this case, who was even represented by a lawyer, failed to persuade the single-member UDRP Panel, that even though his son's name was Justin Alexander, that he had a legitimate interest in the domain name:  

"The Respondent has never used the name and that the son, Jason Alexander, does not own the name and is at most the beneficial owner.  In such circumstances, finding rights in the name is impossible." The Panelist also found that "failure to make active use of the name is an important fact in favor of Complaint."

Furthermore, the Panelist ruled that the domain name had been registered and used in bad faith, although the reasons are not clear. He did say that, "Failure to make use of the name is also critical in this analysis." He also mentioned that. "Respondent contracted control of the domain name out to third parties and did not know who owned the <> domain name or how it was used for several years. Respondent in fact did not have control over the domain name." It is not clear from the decision what this is really referring to aside from some use that was totally unrelated to the complainants bridal design business, but in any event it would not seem to matter since there is no indication in the decision that the domain name was registered because of the complainant's trademarks in the first place.

Again, it is not clear at all that the Respondent "targeted" the trademark owner by registering he domain name, which is essentially the "definition" of cybersquatting. In other words, in order for bad faith registration to have occurred the primary motivation for registering the domain name would have to have been an awareness of the complainant's marks, combined with an intention of interfering with the complainant's trademarks or preventing the complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name.

This indeed is a troubling decision and I would love to hear from the respondent's counsel what he thinks of it. I would point out that the Panelist, Glen R. Ayers, although a bankruptcy lawyer and former bankruptcy judge, has decided about 140 cases since 2000, including many excellent decisions such as,,,,,,,,,, and many, many, many others. In fact, he has one of the best records of NAF panelists. Accordingly, perhaps something didn't come out quite right in the written decision, although it was apparent to the panelist from reviewing the evidence.

Nevertheless, perhaps of utmost concern in this case, is the apparent reference to an application of the UDRP that has been widely discredited:

"The Panel may note that other panels have held that a presumption of good faith registration from before a complainant had rights may be undone by the renewal of the registration in bad faith. See Dockeast LLC v. Jurmark, FA 149147 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s renewal of the domain name registration, which changed the ownership of the domain name registration from its employer to itself, was effected in bad faith)."

Read this interesting paper on the applicability of  'renewals' to "bad faith registration", by Philippe Rodhain. See also the WIPO consensus view on the subject:

"3.7 Does the renewal of the registration of a domain name amount to a registration for the purposes of determining whether the domain name was registered in bad faith?
While the transfer of a domain name to a third party does amount to a new registration, a mere renewal of a domain name has not generally been treated as a new registration for the purpose of assessing bad faith. Registration in bad faith must normally occur at the time the current registrant took possession of the domain name."

I hope that the Panelist relied upon the Dockeast case for only the proposition that a change in ownership can trigger bad faith registration rather then mere renewal.


By Zak Muscovitch.

As reported by Peter Muller, a German appeals court ruled on May 29, 2013, that US-based World Media Group LLC, owner of major websites and domain names,,,,, and, cannot use BERLIN.COM for a website about the city of Berlin. You can read the Press Release from the Office of the State of Berlin on....BERLIN.DE. According to the Press Release (translated from German):


State of Berlin wins court battle to use the Internet address ""

Press Release 
Berlin, 29.05.2013
The Press and Information Office of the State of Berlin announces: In the dispute over the use of the name "Berlin" as an Internet domain, the Berlin Court of Appeal has followed in the appeal hearing of the legal opinion of the State of Berlin. The defendant by the State of Berlin for injunctive U.S. company was enjoined, the Internet domain for the provision of information on the use of capital, Berlin. had the company in February 2011, a new version of the domain - reinforced with information the capital city of Berlin in the German language - unlocked. According to the injunction of Berlin, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that according to § 12 BGB protected right to a name of Berlin is infringed by the use of the domain "" and aware of the likelihood of confusion (so-called "assignment confusion") to the city's official information system in Berlin . de is donated. Speaker of the Senate, Dr. Richard Meng: "We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court, which also follows high court judgments of the Federal Court in similar cases in other respects. This is Europe's most-used town portal further than 1 Address for the information about the state of Berlin secured without risk of confusion. " the judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside the first instance judgment of the Berlin Regional Court, which had the action of Berlin initially turned away. At the same time, the Court of Appeal for a revision of the defendant against the judgment not allowed. Because the other side does not make use of the formal legal complaint against the possible refusal of the appeal, the judgment is final since mid May 2013 --- .

From the above, it appears that the use of the domain name for Berlin related information was ordered to be stopped by the Court, but it is not clear whether the Court also ordered the transfer of the domain name itself. This may be a case involving "infringement" only, and not seeking the domain name itself. If so, I wonder what will be used for in the future? Or perhaps, I wonder if this is not the final chapter, since I doubt that the owners of would see any merit in this decision, or even acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court.

By Zak Muscovitch. When I saw that a domain name dispute had been filed with WIPO for, I thought maybe the .CAT was a typo. 

With all the daily announcements about  new GTLD's  these days, one could be forgiven for incorrectly believing that ICANNN had perhaps made an announcement that we all missed. In reality however, this TLD was approved in 2005 and there have been a handful of domain name disputes already:
WIPO Case Number Domain name(s) Complainant Respondent Decision
D2013-0860 Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. Case active
D2010-2202 Entidad Municipal Descentralizada de Bellaterra Francesc Pérez Torres (SROW - 1385681) Complaint denied
D2007-1196 Caixa D'Estalvis Laietana Victor Manuel Pendas Suarez Transfer
D2007-1119 MARIE CLAIRE ALBUM Narcis Subils Pages Transfer
D2007-0784 Bayerische Motoren Werke AG Carlos Requena Algarra Transfer
Col.legi Oficial d’Enginyers Industrials de Catalunya Col.legi Oficial d’Enginyers en Informàtica de Catalunya (COEIC) Complaint deni
  • There are apparently some registration requirements for this TLD, such as these ones according to Wikipedia:


  • already have content in Catalan published online.
  • have access to a special code (sometimes called ENS), issued during special promotions or by agreements with certain institutions.
  • develop activities (in any language) to promote the Catalan culture and language.
  • are endorsed by 3 people or 1 institution already using a .cat domain name.
But as Wikipedia points out, it has also been used for some "cat hacks" such as,, and

Facebook to take typosquatters for $2.8 million | intellectual property the internet news |

Was quoted in a new article on an interesting new Facebook case.

“I do think that the judge should be applauded for attempting to differentiate between types of cybersquatting,” said domain name lawyer Zak Muscovitch on this part of the decision. “Like all unlawful conduct, there are varying degrees of seriousness.”
“But I was somewhat surprised by where the judge apparently drew the line … In my experience typosquatting has been regarded just as seriously as squatting on someone’s correct trademark, and sometimes it is even more serious.”

Written by Zak Muscovitch

This is a common scam that even experienced business people often fall for.

The fools even targeted me, a domain name lawyer. 🙂
Here is the text of their email:
“Dear CEO,

We are the department of Asian Domain Registration Service in China. I have something to confirm with you. We formally received an application on April 19, 2013 that a company which self-styled “Hengtong Investment Co.,Ltd” were applying to register “muscovitch” as their Brand Name and some domain names through our firm.
Now we are handling this registration, and after our initial checking, we found the name were similar to your company’s, so we need to check with you whether your company has authorized that company to register these names. If you authorized this, we will finish the registration at once. If you did not authorize, please let us know within 7 workdays, so that we will handle this issue better. Out of the time limit we will unconditionally finish the registration for “Hengtong Investment Co.,Ltd”. Looking forward to your prompt reply.

Best Regards,

Alex Qin
Registration Department
AnHui Office:
Phone: +86-551 6512 0117      
    Fax: +86-551 6512 3308
Postal Code:230022
Address:AnGao World Cities,No. 99,WangJiang West Road,HeFei,AnHui Province,China ShangHai Headquarters:
Postal Code:201315
Address:No.11,Lane 788,Xiupu Road,Nanhui District,ShangHai,China”

Many thanks to the distinguished Panel of UDRP Panelists fpr their service, who ruled in favour of the Respondent in a domain name dispute case involving the domain name, The text of the WIPO decision is set out below.

Cheezburger, Inc. v. WeKnowMemes LLC (c/o Dynadot Privacy) 
Case No. D2012-2452

1. The Parties
The Complainant is Cheezburger, Inc.[1] of Seattle, Washington, United States of America, represented by Focal PLLC, United States
The Respondent is WeKnowMemes LLC (c/o Dynadot Privacy) of San Mateo, California, United States of America, represented by The Muscovitch Law Firm, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center(the “Center”) on December 13, 2012.  On December 14, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name.  On December 14, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent was listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the Domain Name.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced December 20, 2012.  In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 9, 2013.  On January 2, 2013, the Respondent sent an email requesting an extension to file its Response by one week.  On January 3, 2013, the Complainant sent an email indicating it had no objection to the Respondent’s request for extension.  Accordingly, on January 4, 2013, the Center confirmed to the Parties that the new deadline for the Respondent to file its Response was January 16, 2013.  The Response was filed with the Center on January 16, 2013.
On January 22, 2013, the Complainant submitted its supplemental filing to the Center.  The Center replied onthe same date that it would be within the discretion of the Panel to determine whether to accept supplemental filing.  On January 24, 2013, the Respondent submitted its supplemental filing to the Center.  On January 25, 2013, the Center replied likewise that it would be within the discretion of the Panel to determine whether to accept supplemental filing.
The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer, Jonathan Agmon and Diane Cabell as panelists in this matter on January 31, 2013.  The Panel finds that it was properly constituted.  Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
According to the Wikipedia article cited in the Response, “Meme” (a word used in the Domain Name and by both the Complainant and the Respondent on their respective websites) describes an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture”.  In the Internet context, it refers to “a concept that spreads from person to person via the Internet.”
The Complainant is a Delaware business corporation located in Seattle, Washington.  Since 2007, according to the Complaint, the Complainant has researched and documented “Internet memes and viral phenomena”.  The Complainant operates a website at “” describing and either displaying or linking to viral videos, image macros, catchphrases, and websites concerning web celebrities.  The Complainant’s website provides commentary about these items and allows users to post their own comments about featured images and videos through various popular social media channels.  The Complainant’s website, which also displays commercial advertising to earn revenue, has been mentioned in numerous online and print media articles.
The Complainant holds United StatesTrademark Registration No. 4052197 (registered November 8, 2011) for the standard-character mark KNOW YOUR MEME.  The registration expressly disclaims any exclusive right to use the word “meme” apart from the mark as registered.
The Respondent is a Californialimited liability company of which Mr. Peterson is the principal.  Mr. Peterson was a 25-year-old student in Film and Media Studies at the Universityof California at Irvine when he registered the Domain Name on April 22, 2011.  Mr. Peterson and his brother developed an Internet media website associated with the Domain Name.  The website, which became active in April 2011, serves as a repository of Internet memes, some of which were originally created or by Mr. Peterson and his team.  The Respondent’s website displays or links to popular images and videos, much as the Complainant’s website does, and it is not disputed that the Respondent is in that respect a competitor with the Complainant.  Like the Complainant’s website, the Respondent’s website earns revenues from advertising and has been mentioned in numerous media articles.  Statistics from show that the Respondent’s website has attracted more than 25 million unique visitors.  A receipt from LegalZoom, attached to the Response, indicates that Mr. Peterson ordered the establishment of the Respondent as a limited liability company on October 12, 2011.  The Respondent was ultimately registered as a Californialimited liability company on December 5, 2011.
Counsel for the Complainant sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter dated October 24, 2011, claiming both trademark and copyright infringement and demanding the transfer of the Domain Name.  The Respondent replied with an email dated November 14, 2011, denying infringement but reporting that the Respondent had removed material (four memes and related editorial content copied from the Complainant’s website, as described in the Complaint and Response) that could be construed as infringing the Complainant’s copyright.  The email stated that the Respondent had also discontinued its “service”, similar to the Complainant’s, of explaining the origins and rationale behind the memes and viral phenomena.  The Respondent offered to add a disclaimer of affiliation and to discuss any other concerns.  A subsequent email from the Complainant’s counsel suggests that the Parties discussed the possible transfer of the Domain Name but did not reach an agreement.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered KNOW YOUR MEME trademark, since both contain the word “know” and either “meme” or “memes”, along with a personal pronoun (“your” and “we”, respectively).  The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name, because the use of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, for a competing website, cannot be considered use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.  The Complainant states that the Respondent was not commonly known by a name corresponding to the Domain Name before the dispute, because the Respondent was not registered as a company until December 2011, after the October 24, 2011 demand letter from the Complainant.
The Complainant infers that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that the Complainant’s mark was wellknown by the time the Domain Name was registered and that the Complainant had already applied for trademark registration.  The Complainant concludes that the Domain Name was selected to disrupt the Complainant’s business and to misdirect Internet users for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
The Respondent argues that the Domain Name is generic or descriptive and is sufficiently different from the Complainant’s mark to which it is not confusingly similar. 
The Response asserts a legitimate interest in using a descriptive domain name for a website devoted to relevant content and services.  The Response cites numerous instances of the words “we know” used in trademarks, media names, and domain names.  Mr. Peterson’s Declaration, annexed to the Response, states that Mr. Peterson learned about “memes” in a university media course.  The Response cites the Wikipedia article on “Meme”, which defines a meme as “an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture”, such as concepts that spread via the Internet.  Mr. Peterson’s Declaration insists that the Domain Name was chosen in good faith for its generic or descriptive value, not in reference to the Complainant’s website, and was used legitimately in a manner relevant to that sense.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the Domain Name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
“(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;  and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name;  and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules,
“A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
A. Supplemental Filings
The Policy contemplates prompt, efficient resolution of domain name disputes on a narrow range of issues and with only two limited remedies, transfer or cancellation of a domain name.  Accordingly, the Rules and Supplemental Rules provide only for a complaint and response, within strict time and word limits.  There is no explicit provision for additional filings except for further statements or documents provided in response to a request from the Panel (Rules, paragraph 12).  Paragraph 10 of the Rules directs the Panel to conduct the proceeding “with due expedition” and empowers the Panel to “determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.” 
Panels are consequently reluctant to countenance delay through additional rounds of pleading and require some showing of exceptional circumstances.”  They typically accept supplemental filings only to consider new evidence or provide a fair opportunity to respond to new arguments.  See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 4.2, and cases cited therein.  These “exceptional circumstances” involve matters that arise after the initial pleading was filed and which could not reasonably have been anticipated at that time.  See, e.g., Digital Ceramic Systems Limited v. Baltea SRL, WIPO Case No. D2012-1198 (“the supplemental filings should address relevant issues which were not known by the filing party at the time that it filed its documents […]”);  Mani Brothers, LLC v. Lincoln Gasking, WIPO Case No. D2008-0097 (“[p]anels that have allowed additional pleadings generally do so only when the response includes a matter that the complainant could not reasonably have anticipated when the complaint was filed”).
The Complainant’s supplemental filing addresses argumentation in the Response concerning the Respondent’s alleged copyright infringements, and the Respondent’s supplemental filing offers a rebuttal to the Complainant’s arguments.  Neither of these supplemental filings concern newly discovered evidence or new arguments that the Parties could not reasonably have anticipated when filing their original pleadings.  Moreover, as discussed below, the Panel does not find the alleged copyright infringements to be material to the decision in this UDRP proceeding.  Hence, the Panel will not consider the supplemental filings as part of the record in this proceeding.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant indisputably owns the registered trademark, KNOW YOUR MEME.  The mark is a phrase comprised of dictionary words, and the Domain Name, <weknowmemes>, is not identical or overwhelmingly similar.  However, Policy claims are not based on proof of trademark infringement, and the kinds of evidence necessary to establish confusing similarity in trademark litigation are not required in this proceeding.  UDRP panels typically apply a “low threshold” test for confusing similarity under the first element of a Policy complaint, essentially to establish the Complainant’s standing to proceed to the merits of the case under the other elements of the UDRP complaint, rights or legitimate interests and bad faith.  See, e.g., Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-0227;  Sermo, Inc. v. CatalystMD, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2008-0647;  WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 1.2.  This is commonly tested by comparing the mark and the disputed domain name in appearance, sound, meaning, and overall impression. 
The Panel considers it a close question whether the Domain Name should be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark for UDRPpurposes.  But the overall impression is sufficiently similar, especially for the Domain Name used for a competing website, that the Panel concludes the first Policy element has been satisfied. 
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives non-exclusive examples of instances in which the Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, by demonstrating any of the following:
“(i) before any notice to [it] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;  or
(ii) that [the respondent] ha[s] been commonly known by the domain name, even if [it] ha[s] acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or
(iii) [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
The Domain Name is a phrase comprised of dictionary words.  The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for a website with content relevant to its generic or descriptive sense can represent a legitimate interest, so long as there is no persuasive evidence that the Domain Name was actually selected for its trademark rather than generic or descriptive value.  See WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.2.  As discussed further below in connection with the bad faith element of the Complaint, the Panel is not persuaded on this record that the Respondent chose the Domain Name to exploit the Complainant’s trademark.
Apart from the use of the Domain Name, which is generic or descriptive, for a relevant, commercial website, there is also evidence in the record of “demonstrable preparations” to establish a company by the same name before notice of the dispute.  Mr. Peterson ordered the formation of the company through the LegalZoom service before the Complainant’s demand letter.  It is conceivable that such a step might have been taken in bad faith, in anticipation of a trademark or domain name dispute, but the Panel is not persuaded that this was the Respondent’s motivation.  The Respondent had been operating a successful website under the name it sought for the company for nearly half a year by that time, and the name is relevant for the company’s online activities.
The Panel concludes, therefore, that the second element of the Complaint has not been established. 
Although this conclusion is sufficient to dismiss the Complaint, the Panel will proceed to address the third element of the Complaint, which requires an evaluation of many of the same facts and inferences that underlie the Respondent’s claim to a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.   
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Policy’s non-exhaustive list of instances of bad faith in paragraph 4(b) includes the following cited by the Complainant:
“(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor;  or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The Panel must decide these issues on the basis of the submitted record, including the signed Declaration of Mr. Patterson annexed to the Response.  Unlike trademark litigation in the United States, there is no opportunity in a UDRPproceeding to conduct discovery or examine witnesses.  Mr. Patterson’s Declaration does not deny his awareness of the Complainant’s website, but he plausibly claims that he chose the Domain Name for its undeniable generic or descriptive value, and he made relevant use of it from the outset.  In the Panel’s view, the Domain Name is not so similar to the Complainant’s mark that it is inconceivable that the Respondent chose the Domain Name for its generic or descriptive value.     
The Complainant relies heavily on alleged copyright violations to demonstrate that the Respondent sought to exploit the Complainant’s efforts and reputation.  A handful of copied images or videos, with accompanying text, among hundreds or thousands that appeared on the Respondent’s website, is not persuasive evidence of an intent to disrupt the Complainant’s business or target the Complainant’s mark, especially given the nature of both the Respondent’s and the Complainant’s “meme” websites.  In any event, resolving a copyright dispute is beyond the scope of this Policy proceeding.
The Panel concludes on the available record that the Complainant has not met its burden of proof on the third element of the Complaint, bad faith in registration and use of the Domain Name on the part of the Respondent
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
W. Scott Blackmer
Presiding Panelist
Jonathan Agmon
Diane Cabell
Date: February 19, 2013

[1]  The Complaint and other filings by the Complainant are captioned with this company name, and the cited United Statestrademark registration is in this name.  The Panel will therefore ignore the unexplained reference in the “Parties” section of the Complaint to a company called “Texts From Last Cheezburger, Inc.”) 

Read the decision here

The Panel considers that the Complainant’s evidence indicates the two different meanings of “kanka”- one a buddy and the other a trademark – and that these were both recognized by the algorithms used on the
website platform to generate automated searches.  The Panel does not find that the Respondent
intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or
other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on
its website or location.

Currently the disputed domain name resolves to a search engine, the homepage of which has links to
websites for roommates, pen pals and classmates which relate to the Turkish meaning of “kanka”.  To reach
websites that promote the goods and services of the Complainant’s direct competitors, the Internet user
must insert a term into the search engine which relates to the goods and services of the Complainant’s
competitors.  This is how an Internet user would carry out a search through any other search engine.  The
Panel finds that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.

In relation to the offer to sell the disputed domain name, this is shown in a banner which is automatically
generated by the website platform not the Respondent.  This is not something that is within the control of the
Respondent.  Further, the Respondent did not accept the Complainant’s offers to buy the disputed domain
name.  Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not register or acquire the disputed domain name
primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the
Complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to substantiate the essential third limb of its Complaint under
paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

‘via Blog this’