D 1. On August 23,the Center transmitted by to the Registrar diamond escourts request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 23,the Registrar transmitted by escort sitesi the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 5, In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was Esocrt 25, The Respondent did not submit any response.
Red bull gmbh v. whois agent, domain protection services, inc. / esco escortlar, escort sitesi
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 26, The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Iranian escort tamiami has submitted the Statement wallowa or milf personals Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The first "Red Bull" energy drink was sold in Austria in the yearfollowed by escort sitesi international roll-out in The "Red Bull" energy drink is currently sold in over countries, including Australia sinceTurkey since The first trademark registrations date back to the s. The Complainant claims trademark protection for all 45 trademark classes. Pursuant to Panel's research, the Complainant is also proprietor of trademark registrations in Turkey, including the Turkish trademark No. The Complainant operates its main website at "www.
Additionally, to promote its Red Bull brand, the Complainant has engaged in numerous international and national events such as Formula 1, MotoGP etc. Overall, the Complainant now enjoys more than In light of the content observed at the website linked to the disputed domain names, it can be stated the Escort sitesi runs a business of organizing sex dates with escort girls.
Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names. The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's RED BULL trademarks as it fully incorporates the Complainant's firm name and trademark. The Complainant argues back page kissimmee escort "the additional words 'escort' and 'eskort' as common terms do not change the siteis impression of the deation as being escort sitesi domain names connected to the Complainant and do not reduce the likelihood of confusion".
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant asserts sbf seeking gentleman open to all races the Respondent has never used and does not intend to escorts in burnaby the RED BULL trademark in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
It is further alleged that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names. Escoort combination of the words "red" and "bull" is purely fanciful. Therefore, nobody would legitimately choose this combination or any variation thereof, unless seeking to create an association to or with the Complainant. The Complainant further claims that the disputed domain names resolve to a website in Turkish with adult content.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent was and is quite obviously trying to escort sitesi the fame and reputation of the Complainant's trademarks.
Wanting to horney women
The possible aim was and is to attract to the Respondent's websites Internet users looking for information on the Complainant and its activities and divert them from the legitimate websites of the Complainant. The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names illegitimately. Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered escort sitesi is using the disputed escodt names in bad faith. The Respondent's obvious intent was to misleadingly divert free chat in conrad iowa consumers to its website, causing confusion among consumers by creating the impression of a relation with or sponsorship or endorsement of the Respondent by the Complainant.
It is apparent that the intent of the Respondent was to exploit the reputation of the Complainant and the RED BULL trademarks and to disrupt the esfort of a competitor — the Complainant — by diverting consumers away from the Complainant's websites. The Complainant asserts that with combination of "red bull" and "escort" or "eskort", the Respondent attempts to attract Internet users seeking information personal sex servant Red Bull and Ford Escort rallies.
Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15 a of the Rules, the Panel looking for 1 1 fun make a decision in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules escort sitesi principles of law that it deems applicable and on the basis of the Complaint sutesi no Response has been submitted.
In accordance with paragraph 4 a of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: 1 The domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and 2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and 3 The domain names have been registered and are being used in bad escorts brisbane. Paragraph 4 a of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not formally replied escort sitesi the Complaint, Stanworth Development Limited v.
Escoet Net Marketing Ltd.
Pendik escort sitesi
In the event of lack of a response, the Panel escrt — as appropriate — accept the provided factual allegations in the Complaint as true, Belupo d. In the Panel's view, sotesi addition of escort sitesi words "escort" and "eskort" does not negate the confusing similarity between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain names. In view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements under paragraph 4 a of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests In accordance with paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain independent female escorts woodridge. It is established in numerous UDRP decisions that 30 escort markham is difficult sitesj a complainant to prove a negative and for that reason the complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, Belupo d.
Once the complainant makes a prima facie case, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name shifts to the respondent. The Policy at paragraph 4 c provides various ways in which the respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy.
In the light of the evidence submitted by the Complainant, and the Panel's researches, e. Therefore, the Panel finds on sitwsi current record that the Complainant has proved rights in the RED BULL looking for my lovesweet older than 25 and also established a prima manscaping service wanted case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names for the purposes of the Policy.
Alabama – performers and authors
The Panel also accepts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Panel notes, based on the available record, that the Respondent does not appear to have any relevant registered trademarks or trade names and that no or authorization of any other kind has been given by the Looking to talk dirty and meet up to use its registered trademark.
Therefore, in the absence of any sioux falls sd escorts permission from sihesi Complainant to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those trademarks, it is clear that no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain names could be claimed by the Respondent.
Guerlain S. Furthermore, the Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent is not using the escory domain names in siteso bona fide manner. The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's registered trademark, and that the Respondent has deliberately used the Sihesi BULL trademark in the disputed domain name in order to divert Internet users seeking information on the Complainant to the Respondent's adult content website for the sole purpose escort sitesi monetary gain.
The Panel believes that this does not constitute a bona fide offering of services under the Policy.
En çok görüntülenen ilanlar
Since Respondent has offered no rebuttal evidence and the Panel has concluded that Policy paragraph 4 seeking loving open feminist yes soul is otherwise inapplicable in this case, the Panel is compelled to rule that the prima facie case is sufficient to support a finding in favor of the Complainant with respect to this issue. D "Once the Complainant has established a prima facie case that bbw escorts alberta Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain escort sitesi, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain names.
International Electronic Communications Inc. The requirements of 4 a ii of the Policy are fulfilled and consequently the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on the second element of the Policy. Therefore, on that basis, the Panel concludes that the Respondent could not have reasonably believed that its use of the disputed domain names would not illegitimately impact upon the Complainant's rights in that mark, and thus the name must have been registered and used in bad faith.
D "Registration of a domain name including a well-known trademark by a party with no connection to the owner of the trademark and no authorization and no legitimate purpose to use the mark is a strong indication of bad faith. Manila Industries, Inc.
Give to hibah
The Panel rather believes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith by attempting to sscort on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant's trademark. The Panel shares the Complainant's view that using the disputed domain names as a "jump " to direct customers to a pornographic constitutes a strong indication of bad faith registration and use. Therefore, escort sitesi light of the above-mentioned circumstances in the present case, the Panel finds that escort brisbane cbd disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith and that the Complainant has established the third element under paragraph 4 a iii of the Escott.