CDRP MSCanada.ca - Decision = Transfer (1.Viewing)

davidm

davidmdavidm is verified member.

BusinessRegistration.ca
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Topics
24
Posts
73
Likes
96
From
Etobicoke, ON
Country flag
I don't know why price is still a factor in determining bad faith, under the CDRP:

  • #478 - Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada v. Manpreet Sidhu (Domain Transferred - Three Panelists - PDF)
    mscanada.ca
    The Complainant owns the MS Canada trademark. The Registrant is using the website as a parked website, and offered to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for an amount that must exceed $20,000.00. The Panel found that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith because the Registrant failed to provide any evidence that it was intending to use the Domain Name for a business "Merchant Services of Canada", and made a large financial demand offering to sell the Domain Name. (summary prepared by David Lipkus)
    Click to expand...
 
davidm said:
I don't know why price is still a factor in determining bad faith, under the CDRP:

  • #478 - Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada v. Manpreet Sidhu (Domain Transferred - Three Panelists - PDF)
Click to expand...
This decision hits home that domains like this need to be developed with some reasonable content that relates to the domain name, such as was the case in the following WIPO decision:

Arm Limited v. Harrison Canning, HTC Enterprises,
WIPO Case No. D2022-1129
(read the decision)
<CortexComputer .com>

Panelist: Mr. Andrew F. Christie

Brief Facts: The Complainant designs and provides sophisticated electronic products and related services since 1990. The Complainant sold over 200 billion products under its ARM brand and its products and services reach over 70 percent of the world’s ...


Held: Respondent assigned a “personal value” of USD $20,000 to the disputed Domain Name, which seemed to be certainly influenced by commercial considerations. However, being influenced by commercial considerations when assigning a value to a domain name is not, of itself, evidence that the holder of the domain name does not have rights or legitimate interests in it. In the context of the particular facts of this case, the Panel does not consider that the willingness of the Respondent to transfer the disputed Domain Name to the Complainant for a sum significantly in excess of his admitted out-of-pocket costs related to the domain name establishes that the Respondent’s motive in registering the disputed Domain Name was other than the one he asserted and supported with evidence. Having carefully weighed the evidence before it, the Panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complaint fails.

 
Could it be there are multiple factors in the decision?

1) being that the domain name is parked
2) asking for large sum

I believe those two combined is the problem. I don’t park domains and I’m sure when you are parking a domain it plays a large role in their decision making.
 
Login or Register to reply

Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free for everyone.

Sponsor
CanSpace
CIRA
FullHost
MapleDots
NameNinja
WHC
Donors

Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free.

Members who recently read this topic: 2

Back
Top Bottom