Quote:
In the present case what facts has the Panel been given that are uncontested?
First, that Complainant registered and used its trademarks to conduct an online business involving the exchange of information and connection between former school attendees, military personnel, etc. That use by Complainant preceded by more than ten years the registration of the disputed domain names.
Second, Respondent did not deny that he is the Adam Drake who registered as a member of Complainant’s online operation in August 2006, seven months before he registered the first of the two disputed domain names.
Third, in November 2007, his blog postings on his web site directed toward an unnamed competing web site that charged for some membership services and who sent emails regarding upgrading memberships (by additional payments) was clearly aimed at Complainant, who offers paid services and upgrades based on additional payments. This shows familiarity with Complainant and its businesses prior to the registration of the second domain name at issue.
|
However flimsy, it does make sense. He was careless with the usage and reference to "other competetion". Usage is what it is.