The Government of the Principality of Monaco filed a with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centeron on August 31 requesting the domain name principadodemonaco.com to be transferred to them . The State of Monaco,represented by Mr. Jean-Paul Proust in thic case is the owner of many registered mark in different langauge for "La Principauté de Monaco” .Therefore in the complainant ,Mr. Jean-Paul Proust contended that the disputed domain name is identical with one of their registered mark "Pricipado de Monaco ".
Moreover,he contended that the respondent ,Francisco Jose Portillo Guerrero,not only has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name,but also registered and used the domain name in bad faith .
"Respondent has no geographical link with La Principauté de Monaco, he is not authorized by Complainant to use the MONACO Marks and he is not authorized to do business in Monaco. When Internet users visit Respondent’s website they will think there is a link between Respondent and Complainant and, thus, a misleading link with who is offering the goods/services on Respondent’s website."
"Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the Domain Name for commercial gain. That is, by selling the Domain Name on the SEDO website this confirms that Respondent is not using the Domain Name for an active website but rather to attract buyers for the Domain Name."
Because the respondent failed to submit a response in this proceeding and because the complainant managed to demonstrate all the elements required,the Panel decided the disputed domain name to be transferred from the respondent to the complainant.
Moreover,he contended that the respondent ,Francisco Jose Portillo Guerrero,not only has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name,but also registered and used the domain name in bad faith .
"Respondent has no geographical link with La Principauté de Monaco, he is not authorized by Complainant to use the MONACO Marks and he is not authorized to do business in Monaco. When Internet users visit Respondent’s website they will think there is a link between Respondent and Complainant and, thus, a misleading link with who is offering the goods/services on Respondent’s website."
"Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the Domain Name for commercial gain. That is, by selling the Domain Name on the SEDO website this confirms that Respondent is not using the Domain Name for an active website but rather to attract buyers for the Domain Name."
Because the respondent failed to submit a response in this proceeding and because the complainant managed to demonstrate all the elements required,the Panel decided the disputed domain name to be transferred from the respondent to the complainant.
No comments:
Post a Comment