Archive for the ‘Domain Names’ Category
« Older Entries | Newer Entries ».CA Dispute Resolution Consultation Now Open
Friday, June 11th, 2010
The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) has initiated a consultation on the CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP). The CDRP has been in place since 2002 and is intended to be a quick, relatively low cost arbitration forum for disputes over .CA domain names. The stated purpose of the consultation is to solicit feedback from interested parties as to the effectiveness of the CDRP and whether it continues to meet the needs of its stakeholders.
The consultation consists of a number of questions about the process itself, the tests that a complainant must meet, the remedies provided and the like. Interestingly, the consultation notes that over the 8 years the CDRP has been in place, there have only been 149 decisions rendered, with the high water mark occurring in 2008, when there were 30 decisions.
The consultation is open from June 9 to September 17, 2010.
Posted in Domain Name Disputes, Domain Names | No Comments »
Municipality’s rights in name not retroactive under CDRP: westkelowna.ca
Thursday, April 22nd, 2010
In District of West Kelowna v. Baremetal.com Inc. the District of West Kelowna (the “Municipality”) lost a Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) proceeding involving the domain name westkelowna.ca, to an alleged cybersquatter.
On April 2, 2007, Baremetal.com Inc. (the “Registrant”), apparently operated by a businessman living in the Municipality, registered the domain name westkelowna.ca. Subsequently, on January 29, 2009, in response to an opinion poll, the Municipality legally changed its name from “Westside District Municipality” to the “District of West Kelowna”. The Municipality contacted the Registrant to request a transfer of the domain name, but the Registrant refused. As a result, the Municipality filed a complaint under the CDRP in an attempt to gain control of the domain name.
To succeed in a CDRP proceeding, Section 4.1 of the CDRP Policy provides that the Complainant must prove that:
(a) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant had rights prior to the date of registration of the disputed domain name,
(b) the Registrant has registered the domain in bad faith,
and the Complainant must provide some evidence that:
(c) the Registrant has no legitimate interest in the domain name.
Even if the Complainant proves (a) and (b) and provides some evidence of (c), the Registrant will succeed in the proceeding if the Registrant proves, on a balance of probabilities, that the Registrant has a legitimate interest in the domain name.
In this case, the Complainant Municipality didn’t even make it out of the gate, as the Panel found that the Municipality did not have prior rights in the mark “West Kelowna”. Under CIRA’s Municipal Name Registration Policy, a municipality’s name is generally reserved for the use of that municipality; however, the Panel found that unless a municipal name is specifically listed in the Canadian Geographical Names Database (CGNDB) at the time of the domain name reservation, the name is not reserved for the use of the municipality. The Municipality also failed to provide sufficient evidence that it had rights in the mark due to use of the mark prior to the registration of the domain name.
As a result, the complaint was dismissed. The Panel did, however, refuse the Registrant’s request for costs, finding that the Municipality had not made the complaint in bad faith.
Posted in Domain Name Disputes, Domain Names | No Comments »
VANOC Gets Sour Taste From Lululemon
Thursday, December 17th, 2009
Vancouver based yoga wear retailing phenom Lululemon Atletica has tweaked the nose of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games (VANOC), with a new line of clothing. A story yesterday reported that Lululemon has introduced a new line of clothing named “Cool Sporting Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between 2009 & 2011 Edition”. VANOC reportedly is upset that Lululemon has only complied with the letter and not the spirit of the laws in Canada that protect the various trademarks used to promote the Olympic Games generally, and the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games specifically.
The clothing line in question features various items in the national colours of Canada, the U.S., Sweden and Germany. Notably, the Canadian hoodies feature gold zippers while the zippers in the colours of other countries have silver zippers. Lululemon lost out to the Hudson’s Bay Company in its bid to be the official apparel supplier to the Canadian Olympic team for the Summer and Winter Games during the period from 2006 to 2012.
Readers of the Knowledge Bytes newsletter will be aware of the legislative hammers that are at VANOC’s disposal to enforce its trademark rights against both would-be infringers and ambush marketers alike. These include the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, which contains lists of specific words that either can’t be used at all, or that can’t be used in combination with other specific words–for example the combination of “Vancouver” and “2010″.
Posted in Domain Names, Famous Marks, Protection & Enforcement, Trade-mark Oppositions | No Comments »