Complainant Canary LLC just was awarded the domain name canary.com by a one member National Arbitration Forum Panel
Canary is in the dictionary and is a type of bird.
The decision was published in Chinese and translated into English by Google.
The decision in pretty disturbing because the panel incorrectly states as matter of law that the fact the domain was parked is equivalent to non-use of the domain and due to being parked/not used the domain holder has not legitimate rights to the domain.
Of course the domain holder didn’t do himself any favors by not going for the three member panel and quoting $7,000,000 for the domain.
Here are the facts and finding by the panel:
The complainant is a company registered in the United States . The complainant was registered in the U.S. have CANARY and THE CANARY trademark owners. As early as 1984 the complainant started using CANARY trademarks in the United States .
The complainant principally engaged in sales CANARY brand oilfield drilling services throughout the United States production of oil and gas companies . As early as 1984 the complainant began selling CANARY brand oilfield drilling production services.
Disputed domain name registered in 2001 by the respondent , but the respondent never used disputed domain name.
Disputed domain name site has been ” parked ”
Now more than 10 years.
The respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name or legitimate interests .
Respondent has registered more than 170 domain names.
All domain names are not used .
Respondent seems to be in a lot of fields out of business registration in order to sell them to someone else.
Disputed domain name has been registered and used maliciously .
The disputed domain name on the page that ” buy this domain “, when contact with the complainant , the complainant provided the disputed domain name was for sale for $ 7,000,000.00 .
In addition, the complainant registered more than 150 domain name registration to the fact that with someone else ‘s registered trademark as a domain name registration and domain currently use or lack of articulated plan , suggested that he maliciously registered domain name intends to sell the complainant or the complainant competitor which constitute bad faith registration and use.
Evidence that the Respondent registered the domain name intentionally rational use through the illusion of being concealed their trading sites sell the domain name in order to reap unfair commercial interests.
Meanwhile according to the relevant searches , the Respondent also registered by other similar domain names and websites for sale in this domain , such acts have been met “Policy” section 4 (a)) (i) under paragraph malicious domain name registration and use situation.
Given the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name in bad faith registration and use . Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has completed its policy section 4 (a) of the third burden of proof.