WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Middle

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

WildWorks, Inc. v. Ong Dai Vu Hao

Case No. D2016-0946

1. The Events

The Complainant is WildWorks, Inc., Salt Lake Metropolis, Utah, United States of America, represented by Hughes Media Regulation Group, PLLC, United States of America.

The Respondent is Ong Dai Vu Hao, TP Lang Son, Viet Nam.

2. The Area Identify and Registrar

The disputed area title <animaljamonline.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Mat Bao Buying and selling & Service Firm Restricted d/b/a Mat Bao (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural Historical past

The Grievance was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Middle (the “Center”) on Could 11, 2016. On Could 12, 2016, the Middle transmitted by electronic mail to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in reference to the Disputed Area Identify. On Could 17, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by electronic mail to the Middle its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed because the registrant and offering the contact particulars. The Registrar additional knowledgeable the Middle that the language of the Registration Settlement for the Disputed Area Identify was Vietnamese. On Could 18, 2016, the Middle despatched an electronic mail relating to the language of the continuing in each English and Vietnamese, and invited the Complainant to state its place on this concern by Could 21, 2016, and the Respondent by Could 23, 2016.

On Could 20, 2016, the Complainant filed an announcement with which it reiterated its request for the continuing to be held within the English language. On Could 21, 2016, the Respondent acknowledged that it may use English at a fundamental stage, however could be troublesome to him to pursue a authorized continuing carried out in English.

On the identical date, the Middle knowledgeable the Events in each English and Vietnamese that it’s going to settle for the Grievance as filed in English and can settle for a Response in both English or Vietnamese.

The Middle verified that the Grievance glad the formal necessities of the Uniform Area Identify Dispute Decision Coverage (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Guidelines for Uniform Area Identify Dispute Decision Coverage (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Guidelines for Uniform Area Identify Dispute Decision Coverage (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Guidelines, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Middle formally notified the Respondent of the Grievance, and the continuing commenced on Could 24, 2016. In accordance with the Guidelines, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 13, 2016. Aside from a number of emails acquired from Respondent, no formal Response was filed with the Middle.

The Middle appointed Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac as the only real panelist on this matter on June 29, 2016. The Panel finds that it was correctly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Assertion of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Middle to make sure compliance with the Guidelines, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a sport growth studio based mostly in Salt Lake Metropolis, Utah, United States. The corporate has been assembled from sport trade veterans, designing progressive and authentic titles for avid gamers of all ages and throughout all platforms, together with residence consoles, PCs and handheld gadgets. One of many main merchandise of the Complainant is the award-winning Animal Jam, a preferred digital world for youths.

The Complainant is the proprietor of the trademark ANIMAL JAM, which is registered in america (USPTO Registration No. 3949116 of April 19, 2011) and in numerous different nations world wide, together with Viet Nam (Worldwide Registration No. 1234335, 1257667) for items/ companies in Lessons 9 (in pertinent half, pc sport software program and applications), 16, 18, 25, 28 and 41 (leisure companies, particularly, offering on-line pc video games and an internet digital world that includes on-line pc video games and short-term use of on-line non-downloadable pc and online game software program).

The Complainant can also be the proprietor of the area title <animaljam.com>, which is created and registered since as early as October 15, 2007. In early 2016, Animal Jam was named the quickest rising sport web site in america with over 50 million customers registered worldwide.

The Disputed Area Identify is registered on September 21, 2015, and was bought by the Respondent on February 15, 2016. Earlier than the graduation of the UDRP continuing, the Respondent was utilizing the Disputed Area Identify to redirect Web customers to an unauthorized copy of the Animal Jam sport, in addition to providing copies and pay-per-click commercials of different on-line video games.

As indicated within the case file, the Complainant’s attorneys despatched to the Respondent a discover of infringement on February 4, 2016. The Respondent didn’t reply to the stated discover, however started utilizing the Disputed Area Identify to redirect customers to a different of its domains, <animalgamesaz.com>, which incorporates the identical unauthorized makes use of of the Complainant’s emblems and copyrights in addition to choices and commercials for the Complainant’s opponents.

5. Events’ Contentions

A. The Complainant

The Complainant contends that every of the three parts laid out in paragraph 4(a) of the Coverage are glad within the current case, as follows:

(i) The Disputed Area Identify is confusingly just like a trademark or service mark wherein the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant contends that the Complainant is the precise holder of the trademark Animal Jam in numerous nations worldwide, together with in Viet Nam, for, amongst others, pc sport software program in Class 9 and leisure companies of offering on-line pc video games and an internet digital world that includes on-line pc video games in Class 41.

The trademark ANIMAL JAM is recognizable throughout the Disputed Area Identify. The addition of the frequent, descriptive phrase “online” within the Disputed Area Identify needs to be disregarded because it doesn’t stop a threshold Web person from being confused in regards to the supply of the Disputed Area Identify. Web customers might imagine there’s a actual connection between the Disputed Area Identify and the ANIMAL JAM trademark due to the general impression of the Disputed Area Identify (which offers an unauthorized model of the Animal Jam on-line sport) and the character of the Animal Jam on-line online game. The addition of the phrase “online” creates no distinguishing worth to the Disputed Area Identify, however moderately reinforces confusion for Web customers looking for to play the Animal Jam on-line online game.

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or official pursuits in respect of the Disputed Area Identify.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is just not, and by no means has been, a licensee or enterprise affiliate of the Complainant, nor has the Respondent been in any other case approved by the Complainant to make use of the ANIMAL JAM mark in any method, together with as a site title. The Respondent is just not and by no means has been identified by, or executed enterprise in reference to the Animal Jam sport. The Respondent has no official pursuits with respect to the Disputed Area Identify. The Respondent is just not utilizing the Disputed Area Identify in reference to a bona fide providing of its personal items and companies, neither is the Respondent utilizing the Disputed Area Identify solely in reference to the Animal Jam sport. Moderately, the Respondent is utilizing the Disputed Area Identify to redirect Web customers to an unauthorized and infringing copy of the Animal Jam sport, in addition to providing copies and commercials of different on-line video games in an effort to revenue from pay-per-click promoting income generated on the positioning.

See also  Outlast Download Free (2020)

The Respondent has little interest in the Animal Jam mark apart from reaping business acquire from deceptive shoppers looking for the Complainant’s web site and diverting these shoppers to the Respondent’s web site or web sites to which it hyperlinks this diverted visitors. Additional, the Respondent fails to reveal anyplace on its web site its relationship (or lack thereof) with the Complainant, thereby making a chance of confusion among the many public by falsely suggesting that the Complainant is the supply, sponsor, affiliate or endorser of the Respondent and/or any of the Respondent’s web sites that could be supplied at or linked to the Disputed Area Identify.

(iii) The area title is registered and utilized in unhealthy religion.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has violated paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Coverage and is utilizing the Disputed Area Identify in an intentional try to draw for business acquire, Web customers to the Respondent’s web sites by making a chance of confusion with the Complainant’s ANIMAL JAM mark. The Respondent is utilizing the Complainant’s ANIMAL JAM mark within the Disputed Area Identify to confuse and divert shoppers to a different of the Respondent’s websites that shows the Complainant’s emblems, copyright protected photos, characters, logos, and Animal Jam sport software program with out license or authorization, mimicking the feel and appear of an official or approved web site of the Complainant in an try to learn from the pay-per-click promoting on the Respondent’s web site.

Additional, the Respondent is properly conscious that the Complainant considers the Respondent’s registration and operation of the area an act of infringement. On or about February 4, 2016, the Complainant despatched the Respondent a discover of infringement relating to the Respondent’s unauthorized makes use of of the Complainant’s emblems and copyrights on the Respondent’s web site, “www.animaljamonline.com”. Thereafter, in an try to frustrate the Complainant’s efforts to guard its emblems, the Respondent started utilizing the Disputed Area Identify to redirect customers to a different of its area title, animalgamesaz.com, which incorporates the identical infringing and unauthorized makes use of of the Complainant’s emblems and copyrights in addition to choices and commercials for the Complainant’s opponents.

B. The Respondent

Regardless of a number of communications despatched to the Middle, the Respondent didn’t file any formal Response on to the problems raised by the Complainant, however moderately acknowledged in its electronic mail dated Could 25, 2016 that it agreed to switch the Disputed Area Identify to the Complainant.

6. Dialogue and Findings

A. Procedural Points

(i) Language of the Continuing

The Grievance was filed within the English language on Could 11, 2016. On Could 17, 2016, the Registrar knowledgeable that the language of the Registration Settlement is Vietnamese.

Because the Grievance was filed in English, the Middle, in its notification dated Could 18, 2016 in English and Vietnamese, invited the Complainant to submit both (i) passable proof of an settlement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the impact that the continuing needs to be in English, or a translation of the Grievance in Vietnamese, or (ii) a substantiated request for English to be the language of the continuing.

On Could 20, 2016, the Complainant reiterated its request that English be the language of the continuing. On Could 21 and 24, 2016, the Respondent despatched its feedback on the language of the continuing.

In keeping with paragraph 11(a) of the Guidelines, except in any other case agreed by the Events, or specified in any other case within the Registration Settlement, the language of the continuing shall be the language of the Registration Settlement, topic to the authority of the Panel to find out in any other case, having regard to the circumstances of the executive continuing.

Just like earlier UDRP selections, the Panel finds that the spirit of paragraph 11(a) is to make sure equity within the choice of language by giving full consideration to the events’ stage of consolation with every language, the bills to be incurred and risk of delay within the continuing within the occasion translations are required and different related elements (see, e.g., Deutsche Messe AG v. Kim Hyungho,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0679).

Within the current case, in consideration of the above circumstances of the continuing, together with, however not restricted to the nationality of the events; the truth that by means of its correspondence with the Middle, it’s proved and in addition admitted by the Respondent itself that it may learn, perceive the English language and reply in English at fundamental stage, and that the Complainant, a US entity, doesn’t seem to have the ability to talk in Vietnamese, and subsequently, if the Complainant was required to have the paperwork submitted translated into Vietnamese, the continuing could be unduly delayed, and the Complainant must incur substantial bills for translation; and for the aim of simple comprehension of the Complainant (the one social gathering actively participating within the continuing) of the Panel’s choice with none necessity of translations, and within the curiosity of equity to each events in addition to the Panel’s obligation beneath paragraph 10(c) of the Guidelines, which offers that “the Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”, the Panel hereby decides, beneath paragraph 11(a) of the Guidelines, that the language of the proceedings shall be English and shall render its choice in English.

(ii) The Respondent’s Failure to Reply

The Panel notes that the Respondent did ship to the Middle a number of emails, however circuitously and particularly reply to the statements and allegations contended by the Complainant. Thus, the Panel doesn’t take into account these emails as a proper Response by the Respondent. The Respondent’s failure to file a proper Response doesn’t robotically lead to a choice in favor of the Complainant (see, e.g., Tradewind Media, LLC d/b/a Intopic Media v. Jayson Hahn,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1413 and M. Corentin Benoit Thiercelin v. CyberDeal, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0941). Nevertheless, the Panel might draw acceptable inferences from the Respondent’s default.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Coverage, in an effort to resolve on the treatment sought by the Complainant, the Panel will study whether or not every of the next three parts are current:

(i) the Disputed Area Identify is similar or confusingly just like a trademark or service mark wherein the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or official pursuits in respect of the Disputed Area Identify; and

(iii) the Disputed Area Identify has been registered and is being utilized in unhealthy religion.

B. Equivalent or Confusingly Related

The Complainant is required to determine the 2 following parts: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, in that case, (2) that the Disputed Area Identify is similar or confusingly just like its trademark.

See also  Game Options (Legacy)

Initially, the Panel finds that the Complainant has clearly evidenced that it had registered trademark rights to ANIMAL JAM properly earlier than the Disputed Area Identify was registered. Additionally, the Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated and evidenced that it had a prolonged use of its trademark for its business actions, and specifically to supply a digital playground for youths worldwide.

Secondly, the Disputed Area Identify contains the Complainant’s distinctive and widely-known Animal Jam mark wherein the Complainant has unique rights. The distinction between the Disputed Area Identify and the trademark is the addition of the suffix “online”, which is a descriptive time period. The Panel finds that “Animal Jam” stays the dominant aspect within the Disputed Area Identify. It’s properly established that the addition of descriptive phrases (akin to “online”) to a commerce mark doesn’t stop complicated similarity, thus, within the Panel’s view, the addition of the stated suffix does nothing to differentiate the Disputed Area Identify from the Animal Jam trademark, nor to dispel the danger of complicated similarity, because it was present in earlier UDRP selections (see e.g. AB Animal Jam v. Ilgaz Fatih Micik,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0777; Aktiebolaget Animal Jam v. ibp,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0795; AB Animal Jam v. Ong Bui TrungKien,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2320).

Thirdly, the Panel finds, equally to different UDRP panels, that the addition of the generic High-Degree Area “.com” to the Disputed Area Identify doesn’t represent a component in order to keep away from complicated similarity for trademark functions (see e.g. Volkswagen AG v. Privateness Safety Companies,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2066; The Coca-Cola Firm v. David Jurkiewicz,
WIPO Case No. DME2010-0008; Telecom Private, S.A., v. NAMEZERO.COM, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0015; F. Hoffmann La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0451; Telstra Company Restricted v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).

On the premise of the foregoing findings, and in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Coverage, the Panel finds and concludes that the Disputed Area Identify is confusingly just like the Complainant’s ANIMAL JAM trademark, and the primary aspect beneath paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Coverage is established.

C. Rights or Reputable Pursuits

Paragraph 4(c) of the Coverage lists circumstances, specifically however with out limitation, which, if discovered by the Panel to be proved, reveal the Respondent’s rights or official pursuits within the Disputed Area Identify for the needs of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Coverage. Paragraph 4(c) of the Coverage reads:

“Whenever you obtain a criticism, you must discuss with paragraph 5 of the Guidelines of Process in figuring out how your response needs to be ready. Any of the next circumstances, specifically however with out limitation, if discovered by the Panel to be proved based mostly on its analysis of all proof offered, shall reveal your rights or official pursuits to the area title for functions of paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) earlier than any discover to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to make use of, the area title or a reputation comparable to the area title in reference to a bona fide providing of products or companies; or

(ii) you (as a person, enterprise, or different group) have been generally identified by the area title, even if in case you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you’re making a official noncommercial or truthful use of the area title, with out intent for business acquire to misleadingly divert shoppers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at concern”.

The Panel finds, in mild of the Complainant’s asserted details, that no license, permission or authorization of any form to make use of the Complainant’s Animal Jam trademark has been granted to the Respondent and there’s no proof that the Respondent holds such rights. Thus, the Respondent has no personal rights within the ANIMAL JAM trademark.

Usually, a reseller or distributor will be making a bona fide providing of products and companies and thus have rights or official pursuits within the area title if its use meets sure necessities, that are described within the choice Oki Knowledge Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (Oki Knowledge):

– the respondent should truly offer the products or companies at concern;

– the respondent should use the positioning to promote solely the trademarked items (in any other case, there may be the likelihood that the respondent is utilizing the trademark in a site title to bait shoppers after which change them to different items);

– the positioning itself should precisely disclose the respondent’s relationship with the trademark proprietor; and

– the respondent should not attempt to “corner the market” in all related domains, thus depriving the trademark proprietor of the flexibility to mirror its personal mark in a site title.

The Panel finds, equally to different UDRP panels, that the Oki Knowledge standards are acceptable even when the respondent is just not a licensed reseller, akin to it’s the case on this dispute (see e.g. Nationwide Affiliation for Inventory Automobile Auto Racing, Inc. v. Racing Connection / The Racin’ Connection, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1524). Nevertheless, on this explicit case, the Panel finds that it doesn’t fulfill the Oki Knowledge standards.

Certainly, the Respondent didn’t use the Disputed Area Identify solely in reference to the Animal Jam sport, however after receiving the discover of infringement by the Complainant, the Respondent started utilizing the Disputed Area Identify <animaljamonline.com> to redirect customers to a different of its area title’s, <animalgamesaz.com>, which incorporates the identical allegedly infringing and unauthorized makes use of of the Complainant’s emblems and copyrights in addition to choices and commercials for the Complainant’s opponents. Earlier than the infringement discover, Respondent was utilizing the Disputed Area Identify to redirect Web customers to an unauthorized and allegedly infringing copy of the Animal Jam sport, in addition to providing copies and commercials of different on-line video games in an effort to revenue from pay-per-click promoting income generated on the positioning.

Furthermore, within the web site beneath the Disputed Area Identify, the Respondent lacks of any assertion or disclaimer disclosing the precise relationship with the Complainant. Additional, the usage of the Complainant’s logo-typed Animal Jam trademark and copyrighted photos in a manner mimicking the “look and feel” of the Complainant’s web site could also be additional proof on the Respondent’s intention to create a false relationship with the Complainant. For all of the foregoing causes, the Panel finds the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Area Identify can’t be thought of to be a bona fide providing of products or companies. Furthermore, the Panel finds that there is no such thing as a proof that will recommend that the Respondent, as a person, enterprise, or different group, has been generally identified by the Disputed Area Identify.

The Panel additional finds that no proof has been offered that the Respondent is making a official noncommercial or truthful use of the Disputed Area Identify. In actual fact, because it seems following the Complainant’s assertions and proof with regard to the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Area Identify and the Panel’s impartial researches, the Respondent had full information of the Trademark and had an intention to realize revenue by using on the nice repute of the Complainant.

See also  Photoshop System Requirements: A Hands-On Guide

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or official pursuits in respect of the Disputed Area Identify, and the second aspect beneath paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Coverage is established.

D. Registered and Utilized in Unhealthy Religion

Paragraph 4(b) of the Coverage identifies, specifically however with out limitation, 4 circumstances which, if discovered by the Panel to be current, shall be proof of the registration and use of a site title in unhealthy religion. Paragraph 4(b) of the Coverage reads:

“For the needs of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the next circumstances, specifically however with out limitation, if discovered by the Panel to be current, shall be proof of the registration and use of a site title in unhealthy religion:

(i) circumstances indicating that you’ve registered or you could have acquired the area title primarily for the aim of promoting, renting, or in any other case transferring the area title registration to the complainant who’s the proprietor of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for priceless consideration in extra of your documented out-of-pocket prices instantly associated to the area title; or

(ii) you could have registered the area title in an effort to stop the proprietor of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding area title, offered that you’ve engaged in a sample of such conduct; or

(iii) you could have registered the area title primarily for the aim of disrupting the enterprise of a competitor; or

(iv) by utilizing the area title, you could have deliberately tried to draw, for business acquire, Web customers to your web page or different on-line location, by making a chance of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the supply, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web page or location or of a services or products in your web page or location”.

Every of the 4 circumstances in paragraph 4(b) of the Coverage, if discovered, is an occasion of “registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has put forth ample proof that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Area Identify in unhealthy religion. The Respondent didn’t reply on to the Complainant’s contentions and, subsequently, has not refuted the Complainant’s contentions.

Registration in unhealthy religion

The Panel has thought of the Complainant’s assertions and proof with regard to the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Area Identify. On this regard, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s ANIMAL JAM trademark has been registered in quite a lot of nations. The Complainant’s Animal Jam web site will be accessed by customers worldwide, together with Viet Nam, the place the Respondent resides.

The Disputed Area Identify contains the ANIMAL JAM trademark of their entirety, including solely the descriptive phrase “online”. The Complainant’s ANIMAL JAM trademark, and area title <animaljam.com>, properly predate the registration of the Disputed Area Identify.

Additionally, the Panel finds that given the truth that the Complainant’s ANIMAL JAM trademark, which is an arbitrary phrase, is just not descriptive of the Complainant’s merchandise/ companies, it is extremely unlikely that the Respondent would have registered the Disputed Area Identify incorporating the ANIMAL JAM trademark with out information of the Complainant’s trademark (see in the identical manner Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Hightech Industries, Andrew Browne,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0240; Volkswagen AG v. Swiss Recruitment,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0534) and that it defies frequent sense to imagine that the Respondent coincidentally chosen this exact area title with none information of the Complainant and its trademark (see in the identical manner Asian World of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas Worldwide Property Associates,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1415; Volkswagen AG v. Swiss Recruitment,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0534).

These details present that the Respondent didn’t register the Disputed Area Identify in a fortuity. The Respondent knew or ought to have identified of the Complainant and its ANIMAL JAM trademark earlier than its registration of the Disputed Area Identify, and the Panel considers the registration an try by the Respondent as to benefit from the Complainant’s goodwill.

Use in unhealthy religion

Additional, on the date of this Choice, the Panel accesses the Disputed Area Identify and finds that it’s resolving to an inactive web site. Nevertheless, it’s properly proved and evidenced by the Complainant that by the date on which the Grievance was filed, the Disputed Area Identify was used to redirect Web customers to an unauthorized, and allegedly infringing copy of the Animal Jam sport, in addition to providing copies and pay-per-click commercials.

On this regard, the Panel additionally finds that the Respondent has used the Complainant’s ANIMAL JAM trademark of their entirety, and the trademark is recognizable as such within the Disputed Area Identify. Additional, the Panel finds that along with the adoption of the Complainant’s trademark as a uniquely distinctive half within the Disputed Area Identify, the Respondent used the Complainant’s logo-typed ANIMAL JAM trademark and copyrighted photos on the web site on the Disputed Area Identify and didn’t disclose the precise relationship with the Complainant on that web site.

With the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s logo-typed trademark/ copyrighted photos within the web site and the non-disclosure of the particular relationship with the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent deliberately registered and used the Disputed Area Identify for business acquire and that the Respondent’s precise use of the Disputed Area Identify seems to mislead shoppers and confuse them by making them imagine that the web site is related, fostered or advisable by the Complainant. Such deceptive conduct is indicative of unhealthy religion throughout the which means of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Coverage, on the a part of the Respondent (see in the identical manner Aktiebolaget Animal Jam v. Jose Manuel,
WIPO Case No. D2010-2031).

As well as, the Panel notes the truth that after receiving the discover of infringement by the Complainant, the Respondent started utilizing the Disputed Area Identify <animaljamonline.com> to redirect customers to a different of its domains, <animalgamesaz.com>, which incorporates the identical unauthorized makes use of of Complainant’s emblems and copyrights in addition to choices and commercials for the Complainant’s opponents. It is a additional indication of the Respondent’s unhealthy religion by attempting to capitalize on the repute and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark even after it’s knowledgeable by the Complainant beneath the discover of infringement.

Bearing in mind the entire above and the accessible report, the Panel finds that the Disputed Area Identify was registered and utilized by the Respondent in unhealthy religion beneath paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Coverage, and the third aspect beneath paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Coverage is established.

In mild of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Disputed Area Identify was registered and utilized by the Respondent in unhealthy religion beneath the Coverage, and the third aspect beneath paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Coverage is established.

7. Choice

For the foregoing causes, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Coverage and 15 of the Guidelines, the Panel orders that the Disputed Area Identify <animaljamonline.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac
Sole Panelist
Date: July 13, 2016

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.