Amicus Trade AB of Båstad, Sweden just won control of the domain name HoldOn.com
This is the third recent case where a UDRP panel found the transfer of a domain name to a third party amounts to a new registration for purposes of the Policy
The original registration date, which is this case was March 18, 1997.
However, the current domain holder acquired the domain name this year (actually it appears the domain holder may have acquired the domain back in 2009 and financed it but it was in the name of the finance company)
Here are the relevant facts and finding by the one member panel of Christopher J. Pibus:
The Complainant markets and distributes fastening clips under the trademark HOLDON.
The Complainant’s website indicates that the trademark was derived from the combination of the word “Hol”, which is a village in Sweden, and the Swedish word “don” which means device or gear.
The first application for a Swedish trademark for the mark HOLDON was filed on February 19, 1999.
Since then the Complainant has registered the HOLDON trademark in the OHIM (Europe) and Chinese Trademarks Offices. The following are the details of the Complainant’s trademark registrations:
Swedish Trademark Registration No. 344415;
OHIM Trademark Registration No. 004471199; and
Chinese Trademark Registration No. 9782802.
The Complainant also owns domain names which revert to the Complainant’s website, namely and .
The Complainant has marketed its HOLDON products throughout Europe, Asia and Sweden for 15 years and has developed a substantial reputation in the HOLDON trademark.
The disputed domain name Holdon.com was initially registered on March 18, 1997.
The Complainant wrote to the original owner of the disputed domain name in 1999 seeking to purchase the disputed domain name, but the owner did not respond to that communication.
From 2002 to 2006 the disputed domain name reverted to a website that provided news content.
In 2009, the disputed domain name appeared to be registered in the name of Domain Finance Inc.
In 2013, the ownership of the disputed domain name changed to the current registrant, Dharshinee Naidu. When the ownership of the disputed domain name changed hands in 2013, the Complainant again wrote to the owner of the disputed domain name, the Respondent), but no response to that communication has been received.
At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name reverted to a click-through website that provided links to third party sites.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Thus, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name.
In the absence of any Response, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s contentions that the Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark, and that the Respondent is not commonly known either in business or as an individual by the Complainant’s HOLDON trademark. The Panel further concludes that the Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name in association with a click-through site is not in the present circumstances evidence of use in association with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
In the absence of any Response, the Panel accepts that the domain name was acquired by the Respondent in 2013.
At the time the disputed domain name was acquired in 2013, the Complainant’s HOLDON trademark had been registered for over 12 years, and had been extensively used on products and had been marketed in Europe and Asia for 15 years.
At that time, the Complainant had also been active on the Internet for quite some time via its domain names holdonsystems.com and holdon.info. The Panel is further prepared to accept the Complainant’s uncontested assertions that the use of the disputed domain name in association with a click-through site has interfered and/or is interfering with the Complainant’s business, and that the disputed domain name is leading Internet customers seeking the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s unauthorized website for purposes of monetary gain. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent.