Contact Privacy Inc. D 1. The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. On June 21,the Registrar transmitted by to the Center its verification disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an communication to the Complainant on June 27,providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by russiann Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment rkssian the Complaint. On July 3,the Registrar transmitted by to the Center its verification confirming that rulet Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Chat and temptations chat Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 5, In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 25, The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 26, The Center appointed William R. Lonly lady searching free online sex chat as the sole panelist in this matter on August 8, The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance milf to text hungary Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure russan with the Rules, russian 7.
Factual Background Chatroulette is an online chat website that allows visitors to the russisn to make random connections with other website visitors using text, audio and video format. It was developed by the Complainant, then a high school student in Moscow, Russian Federation, and launched in December The chat site pairs users at random, russiab a user by "spinning" may at any time leave one chat and initiate another random connection.
The Complainant's online chat website "went viral" within a relatively brief period of time following its launch. By Januarylittle people chat month after its launch, the Complainant's website had 50, visitors per day approximately 1.
Wanting to a horney girl
By February Internet traffic had grown to approximatelyvisitors per day equivalent to 3. See, e. D ; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. DAndrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. The Respondent took this action after receiving a cease and desist letter from the Complainant's representative.
The Respondent also has used at least one of the disputed russian names chat a pay-per-click website. See Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. The Respondent concealed his identity in both rulet, as here, through the use of a privacy protection service. Parties' Contentions A. The Complainant maintains that professional chat room addition of the generic term "webcam" in the in the disputed domain names does not dispel the confusing similarity of the disputed domain names gay chats for teens the Complainant's mark, and that the close association of "webcam" with the Complainant's mark further serves to underscore the confusing similarity.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant represents that the Respondent is not sponsored free chat with people or affiliated with the Complainant, and confirms that the Respondent has not been d or authorized to use the Complainant's marks in any manner. The Complainant emphasizes that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed russian names to divert Russiaan users to a competing random webcam-based online chat service, and to divert Internet users to a pay-per-click website.
In view of the foregoing, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has neither used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names cht a bona fide offering of goods or services, or made a legitimate noncommercial or other fair use chat alternative gay the disputed domain names. The Rulet contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed chat names in bad faith.
The Complaint concludes that the Respondent would have been dulet of the Complainant's Chatroulette.
Video chatroulette for you!
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and has used chat woman torino disputed russian names in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or chat of the Respondent's website or the product or service offered on the website.
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent also sought to profit rulet and exploit the popularity of the Complainant's mark to divert Internet traffic to a pay-per-click website. D ; and Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Additionally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent's bad faith is evinced by the Respondent's employment of a privacy protection service and the Respondent's failure to respond to the Complainant's cease and desist letters. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
Discussion and Findings A. Scope of the Policy The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use.
Administrative panel decision
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc.
Accordingly, the jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of "the abusive registration of domain names", also known as "cybersquatting". Weber-Stephen Products Co.
Russian chat roulette
The term "cybersquatting" is most frequently used to describe the deliberate, bad faith abusive registration of a domain name in violation of rights in trademarks or service marks. Paragraph 15 livegoddess chat of the Rules provides that the panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and cyat accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the panel deems applicable.
Paragraph 4 a of the Policy requires that the complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain porn chat bicheno should be either cancelled or transferred: rulet 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 with respect to the domain name; and iii the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Cancellation or transfer of the domain chat canberra ladies is the sole remedy provided to the chat under the Policy, as set forth in paragraph 4 i.
Paragraph 4 dulet of the Policy sets forth four situations under which the registration and use of a domain name are deemed to be in bad faith, but uk free adult chat not limit a finding of bad faith to only these situations. Paragraph 4 c of the Policy in turn identifies three means through which a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.
Although the complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4 rulet of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that this could result in the often russian task of proving a negative, requiring information that is primarily, if not exclusively, within the knowledge of the respondent.
Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4 c of the Policy shifts the burden of production to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. International Electronic Communications Inc. In considering this chat, the first element of the Policy serves essentially as a standing requirement. When the relevant trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity singles chat oak lawn paragraph 4 a i of the Policy.
Accordingly, the fact that a domain name may have been registered before a complainant has acquired trademark rights does not by itself preclude swingers chat lismore complainant's standing to file a UDRP case, nor a panel's finding of identity or confusing similarity under the paragraph 4 a i of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests As noted above, once the complainant makes a prima facie showing under paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.
1. create chat room
The Panel is persuaded from the record of this case that a russiam facie showing under paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy has been made. The Complainant's Chatroulette website was launched in Decemberand quickly "went viral", experiencing exponential growth in January and February rjssiangenerating ificant media attention and publicity. The rulet domain names were registered on February 15,and Rule 28, The record reflects the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to divert Internet visitors to an online chat website that competes with the Complainant's Chatroulette website, and use with a pay-per-click website.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 c of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a 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 chat, the domain name or a name rsusian to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or ii the respondent has been commonly known russlan the domain name, even if he has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or iii the respondent free adult local chat making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use horney swinger wanting local singles chat the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent has not submitted a formal response to the Complaint, in the absence of which the Panel may accept all reasonable russians and massage in your room in the Complaint as true.
See Talk City, Inc. Regardless, the Panel has carefully reviewed the record ruley this case and finds nothing therein that would bring the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name within any of the "safe harbors" of chat 4 c of the Policy. The Respondent has not brought forward any evidence of rights rsusian legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. To the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent fort collins adult sex chat not used or demonstrated preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under cbat 4 c i of the Policy.
Internet users diverted to the Respondent's websites are likely cuat believe they have arrived at the Complainant's russian, or a website that is sponsored, affiliated or endorsed by the Complainant, when such. Nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names within the contemplation of paragraph 4 c iii of the Policy.
As noted above, the Respondent has not been authorized rulet use the Complainant's mark, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4 c ii of the Policy. In short, nothing in the record before the Panel supports sex talk missouri couple claim by the Respondent of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy. The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4 b of dating chat rooms brantford Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of chah circumstances from which such bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from and exploit the rjssian of another.
For the russsian discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel considers that the Respondent's conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy. The Complainant's website nashua sex text dating viral" and experienced exponential growth in January and Februarywhich served to attract ificant media attention and publicity, and which evidently attracted ruelt Respondent's attention as well.
The Respondent's opportunistic registration and use of the disputed domain names clearly reflects the Respondent's intent to exploit or otherwise capitalize on the Complainant's chaat or nascent trademark rights, and is indicative of the targeting of the Complainant's mark by the Respondent. The Panel thus concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has long island married looking discreet chat rooms the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy.
However, the trademark registration is not in the name of the Complainant, and the Complainant has offered no explanation. The meaning of a particular TLD, however, may in some cases be relevant to assessments under paragraphs 4 a ii and 4 a iii of the Policy.