Avid dating life switzerland ag
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances which for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Panel is also aware that this issue is addressed in paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), which contains the following statement: “The applicable top-level suffix in the domain name (, “.com”) would usually be disregarded under the confusing similarity test (as it is a technical requirement of registration)”.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
The Complainant is Barry Callebaut AG of Zurich, Switzerland and Barry Callebaut Belgium NV of Lebbeke-Wieze, Belgium, represented by Adlex Solicitors, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”).
The Respondent is Vista Print Technologies Ltd of Hamilton, Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established element 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Given the international reputation of the BARRY CALLEBAUT mark, the Panel finds that in all likelihood the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant’s well-known BARRY CALLEBAUT trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain names.On November 18, 2014, several emails were sent by an unknown person purportedly from the email address of one of the Complainant’s employees to one of the Complainant’s bankers, requesting facilitation of an international payment to Hong Kong.Those emails were copied to the email address “…@barry-callebeut.com” (with the name of a real employee of the Complainant as a user name) in order to enable the fraudster to receive a copy of the bank’s replies.As shown by the documents submitted to the Panel, the Complainant’s trademark has been registered all over the world and is commonly associated with the Complainant’s activity in the field of chocolate production.