Complainant Canary LLC just was awarded the domain name canary.com by a one member National Arbitration Forum Panel
Canary is in the dictionary and is a type of bird.
The decision was published in Chinese and translated into English by Google.
The decision in pretty disturbing because the panel incorrectly states as matter of law that the fact the domain was parked is equivalent to non-use of the domain and due to being parked/not used the domain holder has not legitimate rights to the domain.
Of course the domain holder didn’t do himself any favors by not going for the three member panel and quoting $7,000,000 for the domain.
Here are the facts and finding by the panel:
The complainant is a company registered in the United States . The complainant was registered in the U.S. have CANARY and THE CANARY trademark owners. As early as 1984 the complainant started using CANARY trademarks in the United States .
The complainant principally engaged in sales CANARY brand oilfield drilling services throughout the United States production of oil and gas companies . As early as 1984 the complainant began selling CANARY brand oilfield drilling production services.
Disputed domain name registered in 2001 by the respondent , but the respondent never used disputed domain name.
Disputed domain name site has been ” parked ”
Now more than 10 years.
The respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name or legitimate interests .
Respondent has registered more than 170 domain names.
All domain names are not used .
Respondent seems to be in a lot of fields out of business registration in order to sell them to someone else.
Disputed domain name has been registered and used maliciously .
The disputed domain name on the page that ” buy this domain “, when contact with the complainant , the complainant provided the disputed domain name was for sale for $ 7,000,000.00 .
In addition, the complainant registered more than 150 domain name registration to the fact that with someone else ‘s registered trademark as a domain name registration and domain currently use or lack of articulated plan , suggested that he maliciously registered domain name intends to sell the complainant or the complainant competitor which constitute bad faith registration and use.
Evidence that the Respondent registered the domain name intentionally rational use through the illusion of being concealed their trading sites sell the domain name in order to reap unfair commercial interests.
Meanwhile according to the relevant searches , the Respondent also registered by other similar domain names and websites for sale in this domain , such acts have been met “Policy” section 4 (a)) (i) under paragraph malicious domain name registration and use situation.
Given the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name in bad faith registration and use . Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has completed its policy section 4 (a) of the third burden of proof.
And if this isn’t the proverbial ‘canary in the coal mine’, I don’t know what is.
Just a ridiculous decision. These bad decisions drive revenue by giving an incentive for other ridiculous disputes to be filed.
Can’t get much more generic than Canary – a bird, a type of diamond, an island chain, etc. There is no way that one company on Earth can claim exclusive use to this generic term as a brand.
UDRP is not the correct vehicle for these type of generic disputes. It was not designed for this. There is way too much power in the hands of incompetent panelists with little to no recourse. In a venue where the disputing party funds the decision there is always going to be a major conflict of interest as well.
Brad
Registered at a Chinese registrar — hopefully the registrant (also based in China) will appeal in a real court.
The translation is quite horrendous, but at least it shows the respondent opted for a China based panel and got screwed by his own compatriot panelist.
To be honest, asking for $7 million was quite cheeky, but this translated portion omits the actual response. Any links?
It’s too bad they don’t spend their energy on typo domainers – like the Chinese registrant we’ve discovered owning 4300 typo domains and making money via typo domain affiliate marketing. Now *that’s* malicious.
That is disturbing…
One member panels are DUMB!
I don’t know if it is from ignorance or just being cheap.
The “mistake” was in not seeking a 3-person panel, and also not getting a lawyer to prepare the case for the respondent. This should have been a pretty easy case to defend.
@Rick Schwartz; you have said it, written it, shouted it “ad nauseam”, one member panels are DUMB!, but people just don’t get the memo. Lets continue saying, writing it, and shouting it “Ad infinitum” then maybe people would get it. As Mike Berkens puts it, it is very disturbing. All domainers have felt this “Disturbance” of the force!!!
The panelist can claim that he played ‘Judge’ on the internet.
some facts could be missing after the crappy translation…
I wait for a good translator or J.B’s opinion. ;
I agree and given the current facts all I can say is that investing in a generic domain and earning revenue by appropriately parking that domain is a legitimate interest and anyone who thinks otherwise is a few clowns short of a circus.
Did the domain holder not even respond? This decision should be appealed through the courts. This is a domain that was worth defending. Now it just got expensive to defend.
To me this decision stems from the different point of view that the panel had. Unfair commercial gain? Doesn’t sound very capitalist to me. This panelsit just doesnt sound compatible with the UDRP process. If it’s a domain worth defending get a 3 person panel.
Rick should add a section to the hall of fame reiewing panelists.
It’s hard to tell, from a Google translation, exactly what went on. From the Google translation of the decision, it seems there was a fairly robust defense, and that the Panelist made an outstanding mistake.
The Respondent appears to have a longstanding trademark filing of some sort in China dating back to 2004. The Google translation of the Panelist’s consideration on that point says:
“Complainant’s trademark application in China does not seem to be registered. In addition, the Respondent applied for a trademark is not CANARY , is CANARY it upside down and back images.”
Okay folks, here’s today’s challenge entitled “How ignorant is this panelist?”
Google the words:
china trademark database images inverted
It’s a known bug in the Chinese trademark database that images are often upside down or backwards – especially when the trademark images involve non-Chinese scripts. Can you guess why? If you guessed “they don’t all read English”, then you win today’s episode of “How ignorant is this panelist?”
“To me this decision stems from the different point of view that the panel had. Unfair commercial gain? Doesn’t sound very capitalist to me.”
There’s no aversion to making money in China. The Panelist, however, Sebastian MW Hughes, is Australian.
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1515762.htm
Here is the decision translated by Google
Complainant Canary LLC ( hereinafter referred to as ” the complainant ” ) . , Represented by Gregori D. Mavronicolas, of Mavronicolas Mueller & Dee LLP, 950 Third Ave, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022 Respondent artificially Lin ZanSong ( hereinafter referred to as ” the Respondent ” ) . , RM 101 West, Block 10, District II, Dongpu, YueQing, ZheJiang CN 325600, CN
Institutions and the disputed domain name registration
The disputed domain name is, it is in 35 Technology Co., Ltd. Registered .
Jury
The undersigned officer assured , independent and impartial exercise of his or her right of jurors , and his or her knowledge and jury in this action without any known conflicts.
Sebastian M W Hughes as a member of the jury .
Program History
Complainant on 20 August 2013 to the National Arbitration Court submitted a complaint . According to the new ” rules of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ” ( hereinafter referred to as ” Rules ” ) and the new ” Court of Arbitration for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy of the Supplemental Rules ” ( hereinafter referred to as ” Supplemental Rules ” ) by the Court of Arbitration of the site submit “Select ” form , the complainant has chosen entirely in the form of electronic documents presenting complaint .
National Arbitration Court has notified ICANN 35 Technology Co., Ltd. Did not confirm domain name system in 35 Technology Co., Ltd. Registered , there is no confirmation that the Respondent is the current registrant . ICANN instructed the National Arbitration proceed with the case.
Court of Arbitration on September 13, 2013 via email to all involved objects and domain name registration information by the complainant described technical contact , managing contacts and associates, staff and postmaster@canary.com payment was served with the complaint and all the accessories , including a deadline for October 13, 2013 a complaint in writing , according to this notification , the complainant may make a complaint to the complainant respondent . Also on September 13, 2013 , to notify the complainant has provided e-mail address to send messages and reply deadlines complaint notice in writing served by mail and fax to the complainant and all involved objects and Respondent ‘s domain name registration information described technical contact , administrative contact and payment contact other personnel .
On October 3, 2013 received a reply.
The complainant’s other litigation documents should be submitted to supplement the provisions of Rule 7 October 2013 8 to be submitted .
Respondent submitted additional documents should be submitted in October 2013 deadline 9 to receive .
October 9, 2013 , according to the complainant by a person with only a jury verdict controversial request , the State Court jury designated Sebastian MW Hughes .
See service record, action panel ( hereinafter referred to as ” Group ” ) has been found to fulfill the National Arbitration Institute of the ” Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Rules ” ( on March 1, 2010 into effect , but in the present case complainant chooses use ) section 2 (a) in Article duties by submitting written notice to “take reasonable and feasible measures to ensure that the complainant actually received the complaint ,” as the same as defined in rule 1 . Therefore, the Respondent does not have any defense case, the panels can be based on the submitted documents and ICANN Policy , ICANN Rules , the National Arbitration Court Supplemental Rules and any expert that the applicable legal rules and principles ruling.
Seek redress
Complainant requested domain name back from the complainant at the complainant .
The parties claim
A. The complainant
The complainant is a company registered in the United States . The complainant was registered in the U.S. have CANARY and THE CANARY trademark owners. As early as 1984 the complainant started using CANARY trademarks in the United States .
The complainant principally engaged in sales CANARY brand oilfield drilling services throughout the United States production of oil and gas companies . As early as 1984 the complainant began selling CANARY brand oilfield drilling production services.
The disputed domain name contains the complainant’s completely CANARY trademark .
Disputed domain name registered in 2001 by the respondent , but the respondent never useless disputed domain name. Disputed domain name site has been ” parked ” Now more than 10 years. The respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name or legitimate interests . Respondent does not exist UDRP Policy Section 4 (c) any of the circumstances listed in Article . The Respondent did not receive grant the complainant trademark or logo used CANARY approval or permission . Respondent is not a result of the disputed domain name is widely known. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name or prepare a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Respondent has registered more than 170 domain names. All domain names are not used . Respondent seems to be in a lot of fields out of business registration in order to sell them to someone else.
Disputed domain name has been registered and used maliciously . The disputed domain name on the page that ” buy this domain “, when contact with the complainant , the complainant provided the disputed domain name was sold for $ 7,000,000.00 . In addition, the complainant registered more than 150 domain name registration to the fact that with someone else ‘s registered trademark as a domain name registration and domain currently use or lack of articulated plan , suggested that he maliciously registered domain name intends to sell the complainant or the complainant competitor which constitute bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent
Complainant ‘s trademark rights only the first No. 3776217 trademarks, trade is THE CANARY, while the Disputed Domain Name is “canary”, the complainant’s trademark and domain name in dispute is not the same or similar . This is even the complainant himself is also very clear , it is in the core of the complaint first 7 [a] section can also only been advocating the disputed domain name with the federal common law trademark and pending (pending) trademarks identical .
Against the complainant’s federal common law trademark claim , obviously requires a lot of evidence , the complainant claimed it began in 1984 in equipment , contracts, websites and products using CANARY trademark , but did not give any evidence that it relied upon . On the contrary , the Respondent investigation that the complainant was established in December 12, 2012 , the so-called federal common law trademark completely unable to gain a foothold and investigate the facts are as follows : According to the complainant ‘s three trademark show , the complainant is an established in Nevada limited liability company , the Nevada company registration information website (https://www.nvsilverflume.gov/businessSearch) query , the existence had such a company, address also agreed that the company was founded in 2012 December 12 days.
Pending against the complainant (pending) are trademarks of the claims pending (pending) trademarks , originally no rights .
Therefore , the complainant does not have the disputed domain name identical or similar trademark rights , so the comparison is the same without even similar .
Respondent on August 13, 2004 to the Republic of China Administration for Industry and Trademark Office for trademark registration CANARY , and in January 14, 2008 to be registered are allowed to use in the 38th class of the registered trademark for the “information transmission ; email ; electronic bulletin board services ( telecommunications services ) ; provides global telecommunications computer network connection services . ” The main part of trademarks and domain names are identical, the complainant in the present case the disputed domain name has a legitimate trademark rights .
Since Respondent rights or legitimate interests , it is also impossible for the disputed domain name registration and use of malicious , not to mention CANARY is a very common English word , meaning ” canary ” , not the complainant ‘s original words . Over the years the complainant in accordance with the disputed domain name was used in the e-mail service business plan and apply the appropriate trademark , as the domain name in providing mail services as well as the emergence of parked page , it is for the convenience of Internet users navigate , not to the user charges, provides links to other sites , that does not infringe trademark rights of others , is not illegal , even from advertising through affiliate links to other sites to get some income and there is no fault. As for the web link appears for sale , domain name service provider is unilateral setting and without the authorization of the complaint , not to mention such universal respect CANARY vocabulary, even if sale does not constitute bad faith. Complainant book accusing the complainant of 700 million dollars in the disputed domain name sold at high prices is entirely apocryphal , of course, no way to provide evidence to support . As has registered more than 100 domain names in British Sky Broadcasting Limited v. Lin Zan Song, DBIZ2002-00280 award of “On the registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith , or whether the use of ” paragraph , the Panel has determined that ” not only by Respondent registered the domain name to the fact more than one hundred were to conclude Respondent registered the domain name in dispute malice . reasons: first, the behavior of multiple domain names are not registered with relevant laws or rules prohibited. Secondly, the purpose of registering multiple domain names may be varied, each of which can be both domain names are registered in bad faith , may also be only one part of the domain name is registered in bad faith , there may be all domain name registrations are not malicious . both have a certain domain name in bad faith registration, domain name registration should not be malicious or other produce necessarily binding . ”
The complainant is a company registered in Nevada , on June 11, 2013 canceled. The only complaint people have gained a registered trademark in the July 16, 2013 through the transfer of acquired , the other two were still pending trademark in July 31, 2013 and August 1, 2013 apply . The complainant successive transfers in 2013 , trademark applications and trademark rights while this trademark is submitted to the American Arbitration Court complaint , the complainant asked to be transferred Disputed Domain Name . Thus , the complainant excessive and malicious use of trademark rights and policies to blackmail UDRP domain name holder , obviously constitute reverse domain name hijacking .
C. Other litigation related persons
A. The complainant
CANARY complainant trademark protection under the United States Patent and Trademark Office registration number 3776217. CANARY the dominant part of the term is a registered .
The complainant also has common law trademark rights in the mark since 1984 .
Behavior patterns are clear because the complainant has over 150 domain names and has been involved in numerous domain names before this forum Note arbitration.
CANARY in China complainant disputes the existence of any trademark . As is clear , the paper has been submitted
In this state, the bottom of the file in bold red , ” which is a reference if you just do not have any legal effect and should be used after verification . .” Have such verification or has been proven effective in this document show the existence of a registered trademark , therefore , it has no legal effect. Further , trademarks and images are regressive in CANARY not spell in English as , canary.com.
B. Respondent
Agent of the existence of complaints qualification statements lack of appropriate supporting evidence . The complainant has the burden of proof being the main complainant does not exist in the case , the complainant stated the complainant merely agents still subject Canary LLC persists, did not propose the appropriate legal qualification proof of the existence . Complainant ‘s trademark registration does not understand the American legal qualification required to submit any proof existed , so the complainant and the assignment of a trademark application , and even against behavior can not be considered proof of the existence of complaints body . Respondent through Nevada ‘s website that the complainant had been disbanded , and provides a website address . In any arbitration or litigation proceedings , the main complaint is an indispensable element , the main result of the complainant does not exist , no longer necessary administrative procedures or impossible to proceed with the case so the request is terminated .
Also, because the body no longer exists complainant requesting expert stated in the award nominee ‘s name and address complaints and other information .
Respondent to submit supplementary trademark registration to prove that complainant canary trademark owned ( see supplementary evidence submitted by the D: trademark registration ) . Respondent had provided proof of trademark rights is China Trademark Office publicly available results. The complainant’s objections are not based on evidence provided by the complainant ‘s evidence was obtained , the complainant is still not submitted evidence of their claims . Respondent hereby scanning provides canary trademark registration , further evidence of the Respondent since January 14, 2008 onwards canary has trademark rights.
a. complainant no federal common law trademark rights
Complainant on the federal common law trademark rights in the lack of appropriate evidence to support the statement . The complainant called the complainant only link on the official website , it is known that the site’s content can be modified at any time , the website domain whois information can also be hidden and can not determine its ownership, does not constitute evidence of stability , that still does not have any evidence to support the complainant ‘s alleged use of the trademark since 1984, federal common law rights.
In fact the complainant was founded in 2012 , even though the establishment of federal common law trademark rights , the complainant could not provide before the Respondent registered the domain name of the federal common law trademark rights proof.
b. complainant can not be amended complaint , canary domain names and trademarks THE CANARY nor similar
According to NAF Supplemental Rule 7 , the additional material can not be modified complaint (No Amendment to the Complaint), the original complaint did not book canary domain names and trademarks THE CANARY similar aspirations , so no judgments of this new demand.
In fact , Canary is a very common word , THE THE CANARY also constitute a significant portion of the trademark , canary THE CANARY domain names and trademarks are not similar ; Respondent recognized thecanary domain names and trademarks canray similar, but that does not mean canary THE CANARY similar domain names and trademarks .
Results of the review
Complainant has established all the elements that give it to transfer the domain name .
Discuss
” Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ” ( ” Rules ” ) in 15 (a) paragraph , the jury ” should be based on a statement submitted by the parties and evidence , according to the Dispute Resolution Policy , these Rules may be used as well as the rules and principles of law decide the dispute . ”
Rule 4 (a) paragraph requires the complainant must prove the following three factors individually for court training requirements or transfer the domain name to be canceled :
( A ) the Respondent registered the domain name and the complainant has rights to a trademark or service mark is identical or confusingly similar ;
( 2 ) the Respondent has become the subject of litigation in the domain name has no rights or legitimate interests ; and
( 3 ) the Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith .
Identical and / or confusingly similar
Panel finds that the Complainant received through the registration and use of the trademark rights .
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant ‘s overall mark .
Panel finds that the Complainant ‘s trademark confusingly similar . In view of this , the Panel considers that the complaint had completed its policy section 4 (a) of the first item under the burden of proof .
Rights or legitimate interests
Policy Section 4 (c) sets out a number of cases , if the panel considered all the evidence submitted finds , especially but not limited to , any of the following circumstances, the situation on the basis of the evaluation is to be confirmed, would indicate Respondent on policy section 4 (a) (ii) of the disputed domain name rights or legitimate interests.
(i) inform the complainant in the dispute before the Respondent has disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name , or demonstrable preparations to be used for a bona fide offering of goods or services ; or
(ii) the Respondent ( as an individual , business, or other organization ) has been known as a result of the disputed domain name , even if the complainant has not obtained any trademark or service mark ; or
(iii) the Respondent ‘s use of the disputed domain name is a legitimate noncommercial or is justified, and not misleading consumers or to tarnish the complainant trade mark or service mark in order to reap commercial benefits intentions.
The present case , the complainant did not authorize , permit or allow the Respondent registered the disputed domain name or use or use of its trademarks . Complainant THE CANARY CANARY trademarks and trademark rights enjoyed , and the registration and use of the trademark time before the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name . The Group believes that the complainant has provided prima facie evidence that the disputed domain name has no rights or legitimate interests in order to rebut the presumption of liability will be transferred to the Complainant . (Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines dd v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
Respondent failed to prove that it has made with the disputed domain name to any related trademark or domain name is used for bona fide offering of goods or services.
No evidence that the Respondent widely known because of the disputed domain name .
No evidence that the Respondent ‘s use of the disputed domain name is a legitimate noncommercial or justified.
Evidence that the Respondent registered the domain name intentionally rational use through the illusion of being concealed their trading sites sell the domain name in order to reap unfair commercial interests.
Complainant ‘s trademark application in China does not seem to be registered. In addition , the Respondent applied for a trademark is not CANARY, is CANARY and upside down and back images.
The Group believes that the complainant has provided prima facie evidence that the disputed domain name has no rights or legitimate interests , the Respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its disputed rights or legitimate interests in the domain name . Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has completed its policy section 4 (a) of the second term under the burden of proof .
Faith registration and use
According to the “policy” section 4 (b) (i) of being the complainant’s behavior is equivalent to the following malicious use of the disputed domain name registration and :
Registration or use of the domain name ‘s main purpose is to serve as a trade mark or trademark owner complainant or the complainant’s competitor sell, lease or transfer the domain name registration , domain name registration to obtain more than the direct costs associated with the additional revenue.
The complainant submitted evidence that the Respondent asked the complainant to pay at least the high cost of $ 7,000,000.00 for the transfer of the disputed domain name . The act have been met “Policy” section 4 (b) (i) under Article malicious domain registration and usage.
Case, and its essence is a passive holding the disputed domain name , the domain name holder complainant passive combination with other circumstances may constitute bad faith registration and use of domain names (Telstra Corporation Limited v. . Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000- 0003 ) .
Meanwhile according to the relevant searches , the Respondent also registered by other similar domain names and websites for sale in this domain , such acts have been met “Policy” section 4 (a)) (i) under paragraph malicious domain name registration and use situation.
Given the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name in bad faith registration and use . Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has completed its policy section 4 (a) of the third burden of proof.
Ruling
According to ICANN policy requirements by examining three factors , the jury decided to agree remedies.
Therefore, it is ordered that the Respondent transfer domain name to the complainant .
Sebastian M W Hughes, jurors
Date: October 23, 2013
United States Court of Arbitration
The panelist is apparently against capitalism. Imagine if every capitalist venture was so vilified: “You have a lot full of cars you’re not using, so we’re taking them away!” “You’re trying to sell houses that are just sitting vacant!” Scary. A statute of limitations would also be useful. It shouldn’t take more than a decade to discover that someone registered the dot-com version of your “trademark.”
panelists should be held legally responsible for their bad decisions. respondent can sue in cort (if they can afford to do so) but in the end, nothing happens to the panelist who caused it.
Lets look at this realistically.
If you reg a .com domain and it is as good as Canary you do everything in your power to legitimize your $7mil asking price.
PR, content, backlinks etc… if you get your domain right up next to theirs or greater they are going to see it and want it. That screams louder than ‘This domain is for sale’.
Here is something crazy. A canary is a bird, what sound do they make… ‘tweet’.
The registrant could have invested chump change into having a cron based “Trending tweets” page.
In retrospect he would have had one hell of a reverse squatting case if he took those simple steps.
Please correct me if I’m wrong but you can’t trademark the name of a bird, unless they are explicitly inferring that the said ‘canary’ was that specific business complainant.
To me is an article of what ‘NOT’ to do just as much as it is about the lunacy of the arbitrator.
This is the perfect example of a pig with wings.
imho… Ignorance on both sides.
It would be nice if a class action lawsuit could be filed against ICANN for its mismanagement of the UDRP process. Not only are domain registrants losing generic domains which could legitimately be used for many different purposes, but under this tyrannical system people are afraid to buy and sell generic domains which could legitimately be used for many different purposes. It’s costing a lot of people a lot of time, money and stress and the people responsible should be able to be held accountable.
“Disputed domain name registered in 2001 by the respondent , but the respondent never used disputed domain name.
Disputed domain name site has been ” parked ”
Now more than 10 years.”
And this from the country that’s still waiting the outcome of the French Revolution.
So… Based on this we should buy domains and sell them right away for few dollars? Did they forget this is a business like buying houses? Generic names should be excluded from any kind of lawsuits.
…Panelists …
“Disputed domain name registered in 2001 by the respondent , but the respondent never used disputed domain name.”
Answer: ARE YOU TAKING MY PROPERTY JUST BECAUSE I HAVE NOT USED IT? IT’S MINE…
…Panelists…
“Disputed domain name site has been ” parked ”
Now more than 10 years.”
Answer: YES, the longer I keep the the more value it aquires.
…Panelists …
“The respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name or legitimate interests.”
Answer: Why don’t I have rights to my property and what do you consider a legitimate interest?
…Panelists…
“Respondent has registered more than 170 domain names.”
“All domain names are not used.”
Answer: Oh, I did not know there was a limited number of domains I could buy and that it was required to develop them!
…Panelists…
“Respondent seems to be in a lot of fields out of business registration in order to sell them to someone else.”
Answer: Ahhhhh, NOW I understand. I can only have one job.
******************************************************
This business is a buy and hold not a buy and drop.
Kind Regards,
A Concerned Domainer 🙂
I’m a Chinese. The word “Complainant” and “Respondent” in Chinese usually are written as “投诉人” and “被投诉人”, translated by google will be the same “Complainant”.
The Respondent defended that he registered the domain name early than the Complainant’s trademark, and he also had trademark in China. It’s ridiculous that panel ignored that !