In that respect, the Panel notes that none of those businesses are listed as providing travel services, except for MIKI New York Travelers which appears to be no longer trading (see, paragraph 5.B.1.1 above).
5.B.2.7 In sum, the Respondent's case is that since all these “miki” businesses co-exist with the Complainant without confusion, there can be no confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's MIKI trademark.
5.B.3 Rights or Legitimate Interests
5.B.3.1 As to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, the Respondent concedes that it is not commonly known by the domain name. ...Discussion and Findings
7.1 The Policy paragraph 4(a) provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following in order to succeed in an administrative proceeding
(i) that the Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7.2 The Policy paragraph 4(c) sets out circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in issue.
7.3 The Policy paragraph 4(b) sets out circumstances which, again in particular but without limitation, if found the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
7.4 As stated, the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy are not exclusionary. ...
2009-05-14 - Case Details