Anyone recognise this UDRP ?

[domaingenius]

If any recognises this UDRP decision from following text I would be interested to know what domain it referred to;
"The defendant is the owner of numerous trademarks in Latin America (but not in Germany) similar or identical to the disputed .com domain name. The domain name was originally regis-tered in 1996 and transferred to the plaintiff in June 2008. In November 2008, the defendant submitted a complaint to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre under the UDRP. WIPO ordered that the domain name be transferred to the defendant since the domain name holder acquired it in bad faith and had no legitimate interest in the domain name. "

That is all the text I have. I believe may be a German registrar or German domainer ?.

Thanks

DG

---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 AM ----------

By the way, related to this but not this, you will see some good (for me and others I hope) news soon.

[south]

This might help:

http://www.bardehle.com/en/news/news...n-name-de.html

Used copyscape to find it btw.. g limits searches to 32 words

[domaingenius]

This might help:

http://www.bardehle.com/en/news/news...n-name-de.html

Used copyscape to find it btw.. g limits searches to 32 words

LOL< Thanks for trying but that in fact is exactly where I got the quote from. Was trying to find out which domain this referred to .The key I guess is that the UDRP complainant have trade marks in Latin America. Will keep looking.

DG

[south]

Sorry, thought you only had the little section of text. Looks like you will need to find out how to research the case #

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 AM ----------

Might be worth a try picking up the phone & chatting with them.

[domaingenius]

I have found the UDRP decision http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-1770.html I was following this one because Claro tried to take the matter through the Berlin Court but was rejected and the rejection by the Court referred to another case which I know what subsequently overturned on appeal .

DG