Will The Coupon Craze End When The Economy Recovers?

Over the past few years there hasn’t been a much hotter sector than coupon sites.

Last week we told you the Coupons.com just raised $200 Million giving it a billion dollar valuation and we all know Groupon.com turned down billions from Google to go public later this year, and those are only 2 of many sites dedicated to coupon type offers.

However we are in the worse recession since the great depression and some stats I have been looking at would indicate that when the economy recovers (whenever that will be) people’s use of coupons might greatly decline.

Here are some stories that indicate coupons are tied to the overall economy.

InternetRetailer.com:

The recession prompted consumers to turn to coupons more in 2009 than they did the year before, the first increase in 17 years, according to a new study.

From CouponSherpa.com:

“While the tight economy truly sucks, we’re seeing one big advantage: Many consumers have returned to the frugal ways our grandparents used during the Great Depression. Such practices as re-using plastic bags, limiting or abandoning credit card use, and using coupons to stretch our budgets have become ingrained.”

“In fact, coupon use has grown so monumentally the statistics for 2009 are staggering.

  • Coupon use grew to 29 percent, the first annual increase seen since 1992.
  • More than 3.3 billion coupons were redeemed in 2009, for a total savings of $858 million.
  • Nearly 30 percent of people surveyed by Promo P&I Newsletter in 2009 said they made a special trip to a store to use a coupon.

This trend started in October of 2008 — coinciding with news of the U.S. financial crisis — and led to 15 months of double-digit growth. “””

Lets look back to reports before the recession from 2006 from Couponing.com

“”CMS.com announced that over $331 billion dollars in potential consumer savings were distributed through coupons in 2006 with over 2.6 billion redeemed. This was a decline in both distribution (-12%) and redemption (-13%) from the past year.”

From 2005:

“What is interesting is that the consumer response to coupon promotions fell 6% in 2005 compared to 2004.”

“Consumers redeemed 3 billion coupons compared to 3.2 billion in 2004. ”

According to a study people even admit they use coupons much more during a recession:

From Direct Marketing Canada:

“”A recent US consumer survey by ICOM Information & Communications LP, a Toronto-based marketing consultant and targeted coupon distributor, found that 67% of consumers say they are more likely to redeem a coupon during a recession.”

“Of the 1,529 US consumers participating in the survey, 45 percent said they were much more likely to use more coupons in a recessionary period, and 22 percent said they were somewhat more likely.”

“During the 2001 economic downturn, ICOM’s tracking also showed a significant increase in the number of coupons consumers redeemed each week.”

A” recent US study conducted by Prospectiv of Wakefield, Mass, polled 1,386 consumers and found that 72% are using more coupons than they did six months ago. ”

“Three-quarters of these respondents claimed the economy made them do it. ”

So as the economy improves will coupon usage start declining once again?

And if so the coupon craze might just start dying off just when the economy starts picking up steam.

What are your thoughts?

As Your Reading This I’m On My Way To ICANN Singapore On The World’s Longest Non-Stop Flight (Really)

As the ICANN meeting in Singapore gets going Sunday night with a few receptions, I’m aboard Singapore Flight 21, which according to Wikipedia.org, is the longest non-stop flight in the world.

The flight clocks in at 18 1/2 hours and travels some 10,000 miles.

Add that to the time change that has Singapore 12 hours ahead from EST and I arrive some 30 hours on the clock after I take off.

Once in Singapore I may have some slight jet lag for a month or so.

We will be giving you a and on report from ICANN although your comments may not get responses at quickly as your use to.

See you from the other side of the world.

 

 

Afternic.com Sells $700k In Domains Led By Chop.com For $60k

Afternic.com just released its sales for the week ending Sunday June 12th. All reportable domain sales $1k and over totalled $701,219. The top seller of the week was Chop.com at $60,000 followed by Antonio.net at $11,000.

Here is the complete list:

.com Sales >$1K
chop.com $60,000
netstars.com $9,500
geometrical.com $8,000
play4me.com $7,500
doghelp.com $6,400
fashionconnection.com $6,000
TuxedoVest.com $5,500
MuscleTesting.com $5,500
gamevalley.com $5,000
southerndental.com $5,000
bizcash.com $5,000
manufacturingmatters.com $5,000
justelectronics.com $4,900
WaterHeatersOnline.com $4,800
ltmx.com $4,689
72dpi.com $4,500
shagster.com $4,500
macat.com $4,388
fabjewelry.com $4,388
seniorsecure.com $4,388
editer.com $4,200
truair.com $4,188
islanddeals.com $4,000
dreamfurniture.com $4,000
InternationalJetCharter.com $4,000
sizeme.com $4,000
minati.com $3,995
shansu.com $3,988
cinemaondemand.com $3,888
wahrsager.com $3,854
northeasttravel.com $3,688
RealtimeMonitor.com $3,600
maxtown.com $3,588
mtmcorp.com $3,588
mightymax.com $3,500
financecity.com $3,500
awds.com $3,500
fastcamera.com $3,500
colgroup.com $3,388
toolshows.com $3,321
healthgraph.com $3,300
worldclassrealty.com $3,250
xling.com $3,195
consegna.com $3,188
livingactive.com $3,188
suite8.com $3,000
workershealth.com $3,000
bikestar.com $3,000
financesource.com $3,000
4ag.com $3,000
waoc.com $3,000
eldertech.com $3,000
spootnik.com $2,988
growingcity.com $2,888
houstonfirst.com $2,849
hopnow.com $2,788
careclaims.com $2,788
freshbeginning.com $2,788
conversationonline.com $2,760
spamobile.com $2,700
womaninblack.com $2,654
waterwaste.com $2,600
healthytouch.com $2,588
angelit.com $2,588
linuxadmins.com $2,500
easyproof.com $2,500
telexed.com $2,500
topwood.com $2,500
manncom.com $2,500
educationsupplies.com $2,500
focusedmarketing.com $2,500
nilgai.com $2,500
forevercreative.com $2,500
digitlock.com $2,488
luckybuys.com $2,488
ipressbox.com $2,488
johnsonit.com $2,488
suretrader.com $2,488
KNIFTY.com $2,488
stammzelle.com $2,450
warcosts.com $2,400
localgold.com $2,388
mstrategy.com $2,388
axisllc.com $2,388
primped.com $2,381
rageon.com $2,370
homevendors.com $2,330
andrewsassociates.com $2,300
telecomchoices.com $2,288
destinationwellness.com $2,200
majestik.com $2,200
tradefurniture.com $2,200
portableparty.com $2,188
premierdocs.com $2,188
hydroponicspro.com $2,150
financialflexibility.com $2,100
SpeakerMedia.com $2,100
profitfromhome.com $2,000
starstop.com $2,000
divaworks.com $2,000
automotiveintelligence.com $2,000
sharetheprofit.com $2,000
linvic.com $2,000
kapai.com $2,000
travelscanner.com $2,000
musicflash.com $2,000
convencao.com $2,000
homefoundation.com $2,000
allianceautomotive.com $2,000
psychiatryblog.com $2,000
northvalleys.com $1,988
mobilerehab.com $1,988
hotelbell.com $1,888
servicewindow.com $1,888
wearefashion.com $1,888
mamica.com $1,888
creativesite.com $1,888
audiovisualinstallation.com $1,888
investmentcredit.com $1,888
pawnmarket.com $1,888
youthmovements.com $1,800
hahv.com $1,800
pekingrestaurant.com $1,800
boomrealty.com $1,794
sitefreedom.com $1,788
tastinglife.com $1,788
martinp.com $1,750
marketingsecretsrevealed.com $1,750
homeapparel.com $1,732
nextshare.com $1,699
doughmasters.com $1,688
currencyclicks.com $1,688
mowjoe.com $1,688
localworkforce.com $1,688
okbay.com $1,650
icredits.com $1,600
thedelhi.com $1,600
anatomicalproducts.com $1,600
caips.com $1,600
stupid-cupid.com $1,588
no-pain.com $1,588
travellingplaces.com $1,588
advancedbiologics.com $1,588
killerelite.com $1,550
vanewhomes.com $1,550
ethicalmedicine.com $1,520
geniale.com $1,500
blackcurrent.com $1,500
ideainside.com $1,500
morseinsurance.com $1,500
intouchnetwork.com $1,500
helpfordepression.com $1,500
impressionsdental.com $1,500
diven.com $1,500
sportsmanonline.com $1,500
palmkids.com $1,500
unlimitedtv.com $1,500
diagnosticmedical.com $1,500
photographersacademy.com $1,500
thewealthformula.com $1,491
smileandshine.com $1,488
familystrong.com $1,488
developeralliance.com $1,488
calendarassistant.com $1,488
microformas.com $1,435
lubawa.com $1,400
offshoretaxation.com $1,400
spectacularevent.com $1,400
jointhecommunity.com $1,388
insureyourincome.com $1,350
therealtyresource.com $1,300
radiocinema.com $1,300
swmotorsports.com $1,300
sellercity.com $1,300
tropicalcollection.com $1,288
thestrategyinstitute.com $1,288
twistedworld.com $1,288
tenzer.com $1,266
amigomart.com $1,260
dataknowhow.com $1,250
proposaldevelopment.com $1,250
newageproductions.com $1,250
comicscafe.com $1,250
takemori.com $1,200
dotfinance.com $1,200
buildhappy.com $1,200
shahba.com $1,200
pekingexpress.com $1,200
academicportal.com $1,200
nutritionandmore.com $1,200
henryjoseph.com $1,200
perfectgardens.com $1,200
beamericanbuyamerican.com $1,188
embodiedawareness.com $1,150
phyt.com $1,100
personaliza.com $1,100
vmpro.com $1,100
mobilemrirental.com $1,088
afteraccident.com $1,088
morepositive.com $1,088
dennismills.com $1,088
beachelite.com $1,088
server-admin.com $1,088
arthritisclinic.com $1,000
pktechnology.com $1,000
bangkokhouse.com $1,000
ausonius.com $1,000
brandtohand.com $1,000
relevantmatch.com $1,000
dreamracing.com $1,000
testomat.com $1,000
cityroll.com $1,000
facefashion.com $1,000
teakoutdoor.com $1,000
butala.com $1,000
gkfx.com $1,000
artonthestreet.com $1,000
salesscience.com $1,000
creativestyle.com $1,000
HappyPad.com $1,995
StrikeCorp.com $1,895
MajorVehicle.com $1,895
butcherboys.com $1,815
operable.com $1,800
shifty.com $1,600
alexnursing.com $1,500
jvrealestate.com $1,500
podmobile.com $1,500
MontrealOpen.com $1,395
Postclassical.com $1,395
registermyname.com $1,366
IdentityAssist.com $1,340
fitnessquote.com $1,250
couponpay.com $1,250
theanimalhouse.com $1,225
JamDirect.com $1,195
generationhealthy.com $1,108
chepacandela.com $1,100
CurrencyBanker.com $1,095
ChiStream.com $1,095
TEQUILAROADHOUSE.com $1,066
smallcapstockpicks.com $1,000
saskatoonberries.com $1,000
Online-MBA.com $1,000
tacomarecycling.com $1,000
bravelife.com $1,000
Non-.com Sales >$1K
antonio.net $11,000
heptagon.net $4,588
spiga.net $4,388
localcoupons.net $4,000
minimo.net $3,588
sellcar.org $3,288
wikimedia.net $3,188
aconnect.net $3,000
progresso.net $2,880
inroads.net $2,788
boodle.net $2,788
prayerbook.net $2,788
fxworld.net $2,750
xcommerce.net $2,500
facevalue.net $2,388
appworld.net $2,388
smartauto.net $2,000
rms.org $3,350
MoneyMarketAccount.net $3,000
tvrepair.org $3,000
finetuning.net $2,500
nursinghomelawyer.net $2,000
icad.net $1,888
techlife.net $1,812
maxinet.net $1,688
shiawase.net $1,688
apre.org $1,534
healthcity.net $1,388
tapori.net $1,388
securesafe.net $1,350
backpainrelief.net $1,200
promotorsports.net $1,188
raoul.net $1,100
autoshopping.net $1,088
oaklandcalifornia.net $1,000
girlsrule.org $1,000
dialup.org $1,000
sisepuede.org $1,164
taxnews.net $1,000

 

 

Game Changer? Here Comes Google Voice Search For Desktops (Laptops Too)

The WashingtonPost.com is reporting on the Google search event which was held today in which the big news is that  Google is about to roll out Google Voice Search, like you find on mobile devices, on desktops and laptops.

“”Google also revealed a new feature in web search today—voice search for desktop. It’s unclear when this will launch, but basically the feature performs similarly to voice search on mobile. You click an audio microphone button in the search box, and speak your search into the computer.”

According to marketingvox.com, “marketers should begin thinking about landing pages for voice search, especially as Google rolls out its desktop function. ”

“Depending on the company, these might be better off as separate landing pages, at least based on recent research from Chitika that found that people who search with their voice are nearly three times more likely to be looking for local results – a significant figure considering that 20% of search queries are local.”

“With this in mind, website owners might want to consider developing specialized landing pages for the different types of Google traffic, it said. “For example, a consumer goods manufacturer with an e-commerce site may see better overall results if they show voice search traffic a special landing page with places to purchase products locally, rather than simply showing their e-commerce site.”

So what do you think, will voice search fundamentally change search?

Will people type in URL’s as often if they can simply do a voice search and of course the bigger question is how long before will it be until we are all able to navigate the internet by speaking the URL we want to go to rather than typing it?

If so what does that mean to typo traffic when there is no more typo’s?

It is possible if voice navigation (.com is taken) replaces typing, there would be a shift in the domain world, at least that part of it that relies on typo’s.

Those words which could be  phonetically confusing by voice commands might be come the new typo.

Yes Voiceo domains maybe new rage.

 

1 Dissenting Panelist Calls Out Rest Of UDRP Panel On MyCVS.com For Not Recognizing Laches After 4.5 Years

A three member UDRP ruled in favor of CVS pharmacy against Top Investments, LLLP of Mesa, Arizona, who was represented by ESQwire.com, on the domain name Mycvs.com

The domain holder claimed that the trademark holder waited too long to file a UDRP on the domain and one of the panelists agreed.

However the other two panelist refused to acknowledge the passage of time, otherwise known as Laches, as a bar to the trademark holder.

Here is the dissenting opinion of Neil Brown:

“”I disagree with the way in which laches has been dismissed and the reasons for that dismissal.

First, it overlooks the fact that there is now a unanimous three person panel decision on the issue. That decision is The New York Times Company v. Name Administration Inc. (BVI), NAF Case No. FA1349045, where the panel noted that laches is “a valid defense in any domain dispute where the facts so warrant.”

“In a jurisdiction where there is now, perhaps, an over reliance on previous decisions, instead of deciding cases on their own facts, it is unfortunate that this decision is not given the significance that it deserves.”

“The only question should be whether the facts of an individual case justify applying the principle.”

“The majority’s reason is that a delay of 4.5 years “is not so egregious as to foreclose Complainant from prevailing[.]”

“I disagree with that statement. ”

“Such a delay is a very long time in Internet terms and in any event the significant point is not the extent of the efflux ion of time, but what Complainant did in that time that might justify its not taking action against Respondent or the circumstances that might at least be its explanation for not taking such action.”

“That test is particularly instructive in the present case as Respondent specifically raised the defence of laches in its Response; indeed, it put laches as its first defence and made it plain that its point was that “Complainant does not explain why it waited so long to initiate this Complaint”. That statement, on any reasonable test, called for an explanation from Complainant.”

“When Complainant came to reply to the Response, it simply said that laches did not apply and relied on the decision in Pamela Anderson v. Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No. D2010-1144, but did not refer to the later decision in The New York Times Company v. Name Administration Inc. (BVI), (supra). ”

“It gave no explanation for the delay, no facts showing when it became aware of the Disputed Domain Name, what it did after acquiring that knowledge or why it let several years go by without taking any action against Respondent to retrieve the Disputed Domain Name.”

“It is a well-known rule of practice of virtually all judicial and quasi judicial processes that where an event calls for some sort of explanation, but the party concerned remains silent and does not contribute what can only be within its knowledge to assist the tribunal, it runs the risk of an adverse finding being made against it on that issue. ”

“That in substance is what has happened in the present case, the result being that there has been a considerable delay with no explanation given of how or why it came about. In those circumstances, the unexplained delay on the part of the Complainant, although it may not resolve the entire proceedings by itself, is a factor that should be taken into account and adversely to the interests of the Complainant.”

“It should also be noticed that it is said against the Respondent to show its bad faith that it did not use the Disputed Domain Name for setting up a website until 4 years after its registration and not until the Complaint had been filed. ”

“The passage of such a period of time may enable conclusions to be drawn about the motivation of a party, including Respondent, but if it does, the same test should be applied to both parties”

“In the present case, Respondent gave its explanation for the delay, but Complainant, despite being put on express notice that delay was a live issue, did not. In those circumstances it is difficult to see why Respondent’s delay should penalize it, whereas Complainant’s delay, without any explanation for the delay, should be seen as inconsequential.

“Rights Or Legitimate Interests

“As a more substantial issue, the Panel should, with respect, have come to the conclusion that Respondent had made a plausible showing of a right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. That is so because Respondent has registered a three letter word or acronym that has a descriptive or general meaning and in circumstances where it is plausible that it did so, not to target the Complainant or its trademark, but to use the name for its generic value.”

“In this regard it should be noted at the outset that the UDRP process is virtually a summary proceeding and the question that falls to be answered as a contested and defended issue is whether the case against a respondent is so clear that it should be shut out and that the respondent should have its property rights taken from it under this summary procedure without having the evidence tested in the usual way. ”

“It is for that reason that it is often said that if the respondent’s case is plausible, even if not conclusive, the tribunal may well conclude that the case against it has not been made out. This is a difficult task to assess and it is instructive to see how other panels have approached the same issue.”

“The three person panel in uwe GMbH v. Telepathy, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-0261, cited by Respondent, was faced with a similar issue as that in the present case. This is apparent from the following extract from its decision which is worthwhile considering in full.”

“The Complainant’s most difficult hurdle is to establish that the Respondent knew of its mark when the disputed domain name was registered. Some panels (although not all) have found that it is enough if a respondent ought to have known of a complainant’s mark, when the disputed domain name is registered. (For example, in Moari Television Service v. Damien Sampat, WIPO Case No. D2005-0524, cited by the Complainant, the panel stated that a finding of bad faith can be made when the respondent “knew or should have known of the registration and use of the trademark prior to registering the domain”, and cited other panel decisions to similar effect.)

“However the Panel finds that, even on this approach to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, which is more favorable to the Complainant, the Complainant does not succeed. The reasons for this are as follows.

Evidence that the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant might be drawn from a number of sources. There might be such evidence if the Complainant was well-known in the Respondent’s jurisdiction; was well-known in a field or jurisdiction in which the Respondent operates; the mark was distinctively associated with the Complainant; or if it appears, on a common-sense approach and the surrounding facts, that the similarity between the domain name and mark was deliberately created. Here, there is insufficient evidence of this kind.

The Complainant argued that it is well-known in its field, and that it does business in a number of jurisdictions, including the Respondent’s (the United States of America). The Complainant gave little evidence to support these contentions. The Complainant only provided copies of two pages from its own website. Those pages contained brief statements of a marketing nature, and (in effect) reiterating its claims that it has been in business for 50 years and is the world’s leading supplier of solariums and health equipment. The Complainant provided no other evidence of its operations. Neither did it provide evidence of its business in the United States of America or otherwise, such that the Respondent should have been aware of it.

There is also little evidence that the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant because of the field in which the Respondent operates. The Respondent speculates in domain names, and gave evidence that it registered the disputed domain name at the same time as a large number of other 3-letter domains names. The evidence of third-party interest in the letters “uwe” makes it more difficult for a finding that the Respondent was aware specifically of the Complaint’s mark when the disputed domain name was registered.

The other facts of this case do not, on balance, support a finding that the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s mark. The value of “uwe” as a 3-letter combination makes the Respondent’s claim (that it did not know of the Complainant) plausible. The three letter combination “uwe” is also an abbreviation for different generic terms (like, e.g., University of West England or “Unterwasser-Electric Gesellschaft”, which formed part of the Complainant’s company name for some years). Furthermore, “Uwe” is a German first name.”

Respondent’s case in the present proceedings was that it did not know of Complainant’s trademark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name and that it did not register it with any such trademark in mind.

Complainant for its part said initially that Respondent actually knew of the trademark and registered the Disputed Domain Name to confuse people. However, in its reply to Respondent’s Response it changed that position somewhat to allege that it was “difficult to believe” that Respondent did not know of Complainant and its trademark and that it was “highly unlikely” Respondent did not know of those matters.

In such cases where there are diametrically opposed submissions the Panel can do no more than decide if Respondent’s explanation is plausible, i.e., not whether it is probable or improbable and certainly not whether it is likely or unlikely, as Complainant submits, but rather if it is fanciful, with no substance, clearly contrived or a recent invention; if it has enough substance to enable a fair minded observer to say that it is arguable or that it may well be seen to be true if there were a hearing and the evidence tested in the usual manner by cross examination and discovery, then the defence is plausible, even if some doubt remains about its veracity. If the defence is plausible, it is entirely inappropriate to shut the Respondent out in the course of a summary procedure.

With that background it is necessary to look at the facts of the present case in some detail and to decide if the defence is plausible or implausible.

In the present case, as in uwe GMbH v. Telepathy, Inc., (supra) one issue that emerged was that Complainant operated in the same jurisdiction as Respondent. That would tend to suggest that Respondent may well have come across Complainant’s name and it is certainly one factor to throw into the mix on Complainant’s side of the argument. Indeed, it must be acknowledged that Complainant is a well-known company in its field and that it conducts a successful and large chain of pharmacies. To that extent it must be said that it is likely to be well known to residents of the United States, although the extent of fame at the time the Disputed Domain Name was originally registered and at the time the Respondent acquired it is less certain.

On the other side of the scales is the criterion cited in uwe GMbH v. Telepathy, Inc., namely, whether

“the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant because of the field in which the Respondent operates.” That criterion was not satisfied in uwe GMbH v. Telepathy, as it had registered other three letter domain names. In the present case, Respondent is not in the pharmacy industry and would thus be less likely to be aware of the trademark that someone actively engaged in that industry. It has also registered other domain names that it has used in its various computer businesses, tending to suggest that it may have registered the Disputed Domain Name with its own business rather than Complainant’s trademark in mind. Accordingly, although not unequivocal, the criterion specified in uwe GMbH v. Telepathy, Inc has not been made out in the present case.

A further criterion cited in uwe GMbH v. Telepathy, is whether there was third party interest in the same three letter word as the Disputed Domain Name. In uwe GMbH v. Telepathy, there was such interest and in the present case there seems to be more, as Respondent’s evidence shows that at least in certain quarters and probably internationally there is more use of the acronym “CVS” in its computer orientated meaning than there is in its pharmacy connotation.

Finally, the panel in uwe GMbH v. Telepathy inquired if there was another meaning than that associated with the trademark that could explain why the Disputed Domain Name had been registered and indeed, it was found that there was such a meaning. Likewise, in the present case, as has just been noted, CVS has an apparently very widely used meaning, namely “concurrent versions system,” an expression apparently referring to concurrent computer software systems. Nor is this meaning a remote one or inherently unlikely as a meaning that Respondent would have had occasion to use. It seems in fact that it fits into its line of business and it is not really surprising if it wanted to adopt it for use in its chosen field of business.

Just as those tests raised the notion that Respondent’s explanation was plausible in uwe GMbH v. Telepathy, so in the present case they may well be equally plausible although not necessarily conclusive. Respondent has certainly made a sufficiently strong case to justify the conclusion that it would be unsafe to say as a positive finding that it has no right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. On the structure of the UDRP as it is, that is tantamount to a finding that this element of the requirements of the Policy has not been made out.

Added to this is the fact that Respondent has registered other domain names for use in its computer business and that one of them is <mycoders.com>. The evidence is that in 2003, that domain name was developed as a platform for a software development marketplace that currently hosts over 3000 developers working in 89 countries. It is also submitted by the Respondent that the Disputed Domain Name “has a natural synergy with the software coding business associated with the mycoders.com domain” and one of its exhibits shows that WIPO itself uses the abbreviation in the same sense as that claimed for it by Respondent. For present purposes, although these facts may not be unequivocal, they at least give more substance and consistency to Respondent’s case and therefore tend to suggest a legitimate reason for registering the Disputed Domain Name.

These and other matters going to show the legitimacy of Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name have also been attested to in a Declaration by an officer of Respondent who declares he has personal knowledge of the matters involved. Opinions differ, of course, as to the weight to be given to such declarations. But until some reason is given why that Declaration should not be accepted, the Panel is entitled to take it into account as part of the record and to give appropriate weight to it in its deliberations. As at present advised, it must give at least some credence to Respondent’s version of events.

For these reasons, Respondent’s case is plausible and, in a summary proceeding, a Respondent can do no more. There should therefore be a finding that it has not been established on the balance of probabilities that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name.”