The Australian Magazine FlyLife Pty Ltd currently having official website at FlyLife.com.au, filed UDRP through it’s CEO Mr Leighton Adem, named as Complainant in the UDRP / WIPO Case Number D2020-1905 over the Domain name: flylife.com.
Flylife was established in 1995 and has registered Trademarks in Australia and New Zealand since 1996 and 2001 respectively. The Complainant allages that the Domain Name registered since 2001 has been parked and there has been no legitimate / bona-fide offering of goods and services. The parked page also advertises as Domain Name FlyLife.com on sale and the Respondent already had many UDRP decisions against hime, so all evidences Bad Faith.
The respondent in the matter was Mr Jaewan Lee from Republic of Korea, he submitted that Domain Name is composed of distionary words and is weak in nature. The Complainant is not known or famous to have rights in the domain name, when the disputed domain name has not been used in bad faith.
The Complaint has been analyzed on the solde ground of Bad Faith and denied as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As the element of bad faith was not satisfied, the Panel finds it unnecessary to address this element.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As the element of bad faith was not satisfied, the Panel finds it unnecessary to address this element.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As the Complainant pointed out, the Complainant has trademark registrations for the FLYLIFE trademark in Australia and New Zealand, and the Respondent has had negative UDRP decisions rendered against him, which acknowledged the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of several domain names. However, the Panel finds that the term “flylife” is not so unique as to suggest or raise a strong inference that the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark and thus acted in bad faith when obtaining registration for or using the disputed domain name. In fact, there are several other parties using “flylife” as a trade name, including a clothing company in the United States of America, a biomedical company in Italy, and a fly fishing supplies company in Canada. Furthermore, while the Complainant cites prior UDRP cases involving the Respondent, these cases do not by themselves provide evidence of bad faith registration or targeting of the Complainant’s trademark by the Respondent in the circumstances of this case, and the Complainant has not otherwise provided evidence of such bad faith registration or targeting. The Panel also notes that linking a domain name to a domain parking site and advertising it for sale, while perhaps insufficient to demonstrate bona fide use, are not conclusive evidence of bad faith use. In that regard, this use of the disputed domain name does not support a finding of bad faith in these circumstances, noting, inter alia, the composition of the disputed domain name comprising two dictionary terms and the lack of evidence of targeting the Complainant’s trademark rather than the dictionary elements of such mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds the record and evidence insufficient to reasonably establish this element.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
Ik-Hyun Seo
Sole Panelist
Date: December 4, 2020
Leave a Reply