Michael Evans and Chord Consulting Inc. d/b/a XAG (“Complainant”), represented by John Berryhill,just got the stolen domain name xag.com returned in a one member panel UDRP decision:
John J. Upchurch found the Complainant has common law rights in the XAG mark through dating back to 2009 and found the domain holder registered and used the domain name in bad faith because it obtained the domain name through theft.
“Complainant has provided evidence of previously owning the domain name in dispute, xag.com.
Complainant has provided evidence of use in business related documents and in obtaining insurance in Exhibits D, E and C.
Complainant has also provided evidence of its use of the mark in Exhibits F and G. In addition, Complainant has provided documentation of having a trade name registered in the State of Washington, in Exhibit B. While past panels have held that a trade name does not establish rights, on its own, a combination of a trade name and secondary meaning may suffice to show rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the
Past panels have found discrepancies between WHOIS information and domain names sufficient to show that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the
Complainant has provided time stamped WHOIS information, in Exhibit I, to show that the domain’s registrant was changed in March, 2015.
Complainant asserts that this change came about by Respondent’s having compromised Complainant’s administrative e-mail address in order to authorize a change of registration. Panels have found that in situations exactly as Complainant purports to have occurred, respondents have failed to demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant also alleges that Respondent fails to use the
While Complainant has not provided documentation of this use, the Panel notes that the
Complainant alleges that it previously owned the registration for the