WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Patricks Universal Export Pty Ltd. v. David Greenblatt
Case No. D2016-0653
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Patricks Universal Export Pty Ltd. of Bondi Beach, New South Wales, Australia, represented by Jason R. Buratti, United States of America.
The Respondent is David Greenblatt of Lawrence, New York, United States of America, represented by John Berryhill, Ph.d. Esq., United States of America (“USA”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <patricks.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 5, 2016. On April 5, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same date the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 11, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 1, 2016. This due date was extended through May 5, 2016 on the Respondent’s request pursuant to Rules, paragraph 5(b). The Response was filed with the Center on May 3, 2016. On May 25, 2016, the Complainant submitted a Supplemental Filing and an Amended Supplemental Filing. On June 13, 2016, the Panel issued a Panel Order disallowing these filings in accordance with settled Policy precedent. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 4.2.
The Center appointed Karen Fong, Leon Trakman and Richard Lyon as panelists in this matter on June 1, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
4.1 The Complainant is an Australian company which was incorporated on August 19, 2010 under the name “Blacks by Patricks Pty Ltd” in Australia. It changed its name to “Patricks Universal Exports Pty Ltd” on December 21, 2012. The Complainant trades under the name “Patricks”. The Complainant produces and distributes premium quality hair care products under the brand name PATRICKS. It manufactures the products in the USA and sells its products in Australia, the USA, Europe and South East Asia. The Complainant has a trade mark registration for PATRICKS in the USA under TM registration number 85846760 filed on February 11, 2013 claiming the date of first use in commerce in the USA as October 2014. The Complainant owns and uses the domain name <patricks.com.au>. The domain name was apparently registered in 2012 (but see the Complainant’s contention in paragraph 5.2(b) below).
4.2 The Respondent is a technology industry professional. He is currently a principal in a technology start up consulting firm, having previously held executive positions in a number of tech companies. The Respondent was a frequent computer industry commentator and has written a variety of articles and books on the subject. He registered the Domain Name on March 12, 1997. The Domain Name resolves to a page showing various links, the majority of which link to things like “genealogy research”, “family history online”, “adoption records” and the like (the “Website”).
4.3 The Complainant wished to obtain the Domain Name for its global business and contacted the Respondent to see if he would sell the Domain Name. The Respondent gave a price which the Complainant was not prepared to pay.
5. Parties’ Contentions
5.1 The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met and the Domain Name should be transferred.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.2 The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s PATRICKS trade mark in which it has registered and common law rights. It has a trade mark registration for PATRICKS in the USA filed on February 11, 2013 and registered on January 13, 2015 in class 3 for hair care and shaving products. Its common law rights in PATRICKS have been acquired from its long and extensive use of the PATRICKS name as a trade mark and trading name as follows:
(a) PATRICKS has been used as a trade mark in commerce in Australia since 2005, the USA since 2011 and Europe since about 2013. Complainant also sells its products in many other countries. The date of first use in the USA is earlier than that stated on the certificate of registration of the US trade mark because at the time of the filing of the trade mark the Complainant had not properly understood what qualified as “use in commerce.”
(b) The domain name <patricks.com.au> has been used for its global business since 2010.
(c)The shops at which PATRICKS products may be purchased include Neiman Marcus, Sephora and Joyce Beauty (HK) whilst online sales are made through high end online retailers like Mr. Porter and Hypebeast.
(d) The Complainant’s products have won numerous awards around the world.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
5.3 There is no evidence that the Respondent has:
(a) used the Domain Name in a legitimate way during the course of the registration;
(b) made any demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name;
(c) used it in a manner consistent with the Domain Name;
(d) made or intends to make a bona fide offering of goods or services.
5.4 The Respondent has never been known by the Domain Name.
5.5 He has not made legitimate noncommercial use or fair use of the Domain Name.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
5.6 The Respondent is a cyberquatter and is cybersquatting on at least 380 domain names including the Domain Name. These domain names are parked or have been offered for sale.
5.7 The Respondent’s registration and re-registration of the Domain Name for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Domain Name specifically targeting the Complainant for consideration far in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly relating to the Domain Name amounts to bad faith.
5.9 The original registration was in bad faith as the historical captures of the Website shows that the Respondent registered the Domain Name and all the other domain names to sell for commercial use and he now secretly tries to sell them.
5.10 There was a 2015 bad faith registration after the Complainant began using the PATRICKS trade mark in the USA. This also amounted to bad faith as it was after a decade of the Complainant’s use of the PATRICKS trade name in Australia, establishing its common law rights there. It was also more than a year after the Complainant began using common law trade mark rights in Europe.
5.11 The Respondent’s posting on the Website of a photograph of a smiling girl with blonde shoulder length hair with a side parting fringe (the “Photograph”) between 2012 and 2014 is evidence of bad faith as it bears a striking resemblance to the Complainant’s CEO Aimee Kidd and this was the time when PATRICKS was becoming a global name. The use of the Photograph on the Website which was offering the Domain Name for commercial sale was to draw the Complainant’s attention to the Domain Name for the purpose of extracting lots of money for its sale. Further the use of the Photograph probably infringes a third party’s copyright which also supports a finding of bad faith.
5.12 In March 2016, the Complainant tried to contact the Respondent on the telephone number found on the WhoIs of the Domain Name at least 10 times a day at different times for over a week and no one answered the telephone. This is evidence that the Respondent was hiding some or all of his bad faith acts in this manner.
5.13 The Complainant managed to track him down to a phone number through public records on the Internet. The Respondent’s response to the Complainant’s request for the Domain Name was that he wanted USD 150,000 and equity in the Complainant for the Domain Name. This was bad faith as the Respondent did not claim any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, the amount claimed was more than one thousand times the costs of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs to register and re-register the Domain Name and he was attempting to steal an ownership interest in the Complainant.
5.14 As there has been no evidence of good faith use of the Domain Name at any time, it indicates that the Respondent’s primary intent was to sell it in bad faith.
5.15 The inactive use combined with his active use of exhorting money and equity from the Complainant amounts to bad faith.
5.16 The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct to register hundreds of domain names for the purpose of preventing the owners of trade marks and trade names from reflecting their trade mark in a corresponding domain name. These trade marks include “9to5”, “agentbooking”, “findcheapair”, “easy123dining”, “mqzm” and “Vqdv”.
5.17 The use of a phone number through which the Respondent does not appear to be able to be found combined with his failure to use three domain names constitute a pattern of bad faith registration.
5.18 The Respondent denies that the Domain Name should be transferred to the Complainant for the following reasons:
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.19 The Complainant has failed to clearly allege or offer evidence as to when it began using the PATRICKS trade mark on goods or services. It alleges that the PATRICKS business dates back over a decade but the Complainant was incorporated only in 2010 under the name “Black by Patricks Ltd” and changed its name to “Patricks Universal Exports Pty Ltd” in 2012.
5.20 The US trade mark registration for hair care products was issued in 2015 based on an intent to use application filed in 2013 for which use was claimed to be established in 2014.
5.21 There is no attempt to provide any evidence of use of the PATRICKS trade mark to demonstrate its existence when the Domain Name was registered in 1997.
5.22 The Complainant has failed to establish seniority to the Respondent’s 1997 original registration of the Domain Name, nor show that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in association with hair care products to which the Complainant’s claim of rights in the mark are limited.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
5.23 The Respondent’s rights of seniority and priority are undisputed as the Complainant has not provided any evidence to the contrary.
5.24 The right of seniority has been held to be sufficient and determinative for a finding in a respondent’s favour on the second element.
5.25 The Respondent’s intention when he registered the Domain Name and many of the other domain names in his portfolio was to invest in the potential business opportunities of provision of “vanity” email and web addresses in the late 1990’s. He therefore registered commonly used first names and surnames including the Domain Name. The Respondent saw opportunities in relation to plural or possessive common names like the Domain Name. The domain names in his portfolio include <pattys.com>, <patricias.com>, <erics.com>, <daves.com>, <cynthias.com>, <carols.com>, <brendas.com>, <bradleys.com> and <angies.com> to name a few.
5.26 The business plan was not successful as anticipated and the names reverted to parking sites which display content related to the significance of the names as common personal names of interest.
5.27 The Website has links intended to capitalize on the significance of “Patricks” to someone who may have typed out his name out of pure curiosity and then wishes to find more information about that family name. The Domain Name is used for advertising subjects relating to the significance of the name “Patricks” as a family and personal name.
5.28 The Complainant’s founder is one of many people named “Patrick” and one of many busineses which use the name “Patricks”. An Internet search for the term “Patricks” reveals 96.9 million results, amongst which the Complainant is not prominent.
5.29 Prior to the dispute, the Respondent has been monetizing the Domain Name based on the significance of the name “Patricks” itself without a direct or indirect reference to the Complainant.
5.30 The Respondent has never used the Domain Name in relation to hair care products.
5.31 The Respondent is entitled to use the name “Patricks” and the Domain Name for any lawful non-infringing purpose.
5.32 The Respondent’s use of the “Patricks” name does not infringe any right of the Complainant.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith/ Reverse Domain Hijacking
5.33 The bad faith criterion is an element of specific intent directed toward the Complainant, and arising from rights known by Respondent to belong to the Complainant at the time the Domain Name was registered. Two questions have to be addressed – “Why did the Respondent register the domain name?” and “Did this motivation arise from a willful intent to exploit rights known to belong to another?”
5.34 The Complainant has made no claim of changed use of the Domain Name to target hair styling products or services at any time in the Domain Name’s history.
5.35 The Domain Name was registered concurrently in 1997 with such names as <pattys.com> and <patricias.com> for the offer to lease or sell these names, which is considered acceptable practice in relation to “vanity names”.
5.36 Intentional bad faith registration is not chronologically possible here, as the Complainant did not exist in 1997, and only recently changed its name and branding in 2012.
5.37 The mere fact that the Respondent has long held a domain name that the Complainant more recently wants, is not evidence of bad faith on the part of Respondent.
5.38 In view of the fact that “Patricks” is not uniquely or famously associated with the Complainant, but is an extremely common personal name and surname, it has clear and substantial value on the secondary market as a common name per se.
5.39 The Complainant’s claim that the Respondent’s use of the Photograph is in bad faith is without merit as the Photograph is in fact a stock photo of a model Hannah Steller which has been used by “hundreds of thousands” of domain parking companies since 2005. The Photograph has been famous in the domain name industry for over a decade as a stock photo image that was chosen by eNom to use on thousand of parked domains. She is an industry icon known as “backpack girl” or “eNom girl”. Neither the Photograph nor the model has anything to do with the Complainant’s CEO.
5.40 The third party trade marks which the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has targeted are “9to5”, “agentbooking”, “findcheapair”, “easy123dining” and several four letter domain names. All these are in fact common words and phrases and are therefore not exclusive to anyone and are already used by many parties. No evidence has been submitted that these are trade marks belonging to third parties.
5.41 The Complainant’s allegation that the Respondent’s proposed sale price in response of its solicitation to sell the Domain Name amounts to evidence under UDRP paragraph 4(b)(i) of having registered the Domain Name “primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor...” is without merit as it is not possible for the Respondent to have registered the Domain Name in 1997 “primarily for the purpose” of selling it to the owner or competitor of a then non-existent trademark. Even if the founder named “Patrick” was cutting hair in Australia in the late 1990s that would not be a circumstance of which Respondent would have conceivably known in 1997 especially since Complainant has provided no evidence that it was at all notable in this regard until very recently in the life of this Domain Name.
5.42 Submitting a quoted price that Complainant did not like does not amount to bad faith.
5.43 Complainant registered the domain name <patricks.com.au> in 2012 when it appeared to have begun significant activity in relation to the PATRICKS trade mark. It would have been aware at the time that the Domain Name was owned by Respondent for many years. That it now finds the “.com.au” extension unsatisfactory or prefers <patricks.com> in relation to its recently-expanding activities and therefore desires the Domain Name does not amount to bad faith on the part of the Respondent.
5.44 The UDRP was meant to address the intentional bad faith registration of domain names for the purpose of predatory behavior in relation to known trade or service marks. It was not meant as some sort of “eminent domain” in which junior claimants can dispossess senior registrants and users of common and commercially desirable common names, as in this case.
5.45 The Complainant in filing this Complaint has employed what is commonly referred to as “Plan B” Reverse Domain Name Hijacking using the UDRP as a backup plan after frustrated attempts to purchase a senior and non-infringing domain name.
5.46 The Respondent agrees that there is bad faith in this proceeding but disagrees with the Complainant as to the party engaging in it.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Procedural Issue: Supplemental Filings
6.1 Following the filing of the Response on May 3, 2016, the Complainant submitted an unsolicited Supplemental Filing and Amended Supplemental Filing on May 25, 2016. The Panel has disallowed these filings in accordance with settled precedent. The purpose of the UDRP is to provide for a quick and inexpensive way to resolve domain name disputes. Each party has one opportunity to put forward its entire case. The Complainant being the initiator of the proceedings has an obligation to anticipate the possible arguments that the Respondent may put forward as there is no other opportunity to file additional evidence. It is only in exceptional circumstances that a UDRP panel will allow additional evidence to be filed. There is nothing exceptional which justifies the unsolicited filings of the Complainant. Further no reasons have been given as to why it was unable to provide that information in the Complaint. Hence it is not an appropriate case for any more additional evidence to be considered.
6.2 According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The threshold test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trade mark and the domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights to the PATRICKS trade mark by virtue of its US trade mark registration filed in 2013.
6.4 The Panel makes no finding as to any common law rights that the Complainant may have as insufficient evidence has been filed to establish these rights. Paragraph 1.7 of WIPO Overview 2.0 makes it clear that a conclusory allegation of common law or unregistered rights (even if undisputed) would not normally suffice; specific assertions of relevant use of the claimed mark supported by evidence as appropriate would be required. The Complainant has failed to submit evidence, such as length and amount of sales under the trade mark or the nature and extent of advertising, to establish that the common personal name “Patricks” has become a distinctive identifier associated with the Complainant or its goods or services.
6.5 The Domain Name comprises the PATRICKS trade mark in its entirety. For the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top Level Domain suffix. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
6.6 The Respondent registered the Domain Name to offer those who were interested an email address or URL that incorporates the term “Patricks” primarily because it is a family and personal name. When this business strategy did not work out, the Respondent had, prior to the Complaint being filed, also used the Domain Name to generate pay-per-click revenue through links of subjects relating to the Domain Name as a family and personal name.
6.7 The provision of personalised email, blogging and webhosting services in connection with a domain name would provide a respondent with a legitimate interest in that domain name if this is its sole usage (see Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v. Tucows.com Co., WIPO Case No. D2008-1322; Aubert International SAS and Aubert France SA v. Tucows.com Co, WIPO Case No. D2009-0115 and Lorenzo International Limited v. Tucows.com Co., WIPO Case No. D2010-2254).
6.8 As for the Respondent’s present use which is to post parking and landing pages or PPC links, one needs to consider whether such use is permissible or whether it amounts to bad faith. Where a domain name consists of common words and the links relate to the generic meaning of the domain name at issue, this may be permissible and also give rise to rights and legitimate interests on the part of the respondent (see paragraph 2.6 of WIPO Overview 2.0). If the PPC links result in a connection to goods or services competitive with those of the rights holder or is based on trade mark value, such use would be regarded as unfair use and would not confer rights or legitimate interests. If the Respondent’s use of PPC links on the Website does not amount to bad faith then the Respondent would succeed under this head.
6.9 In this case, the PPC links on the Website relate to the significance of the name “Patricks” as a family and personal name. The Respondent registered and has been using the Domain Name for almost 20 years prior to having notice of the dispute and more than a decade prior to the Complainant’s acquiring rights in the PATRICKS trade mark. There has been no evidence submitted that the PPC links result in a connection to goods and services relating to the hair industry or is based on the Complainant’s trade mark value. This together with the Panel’s finding below that there has been no registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith confirms that the Respondent has established that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6.10 To succeed under the Policy, the Complainant must show that the Domain Name has been both registered and used in bad faith. It is a conjunctive requirement.
6.11 The date to consider in determining whether registration was in bad faith is the date that the Domain Name was registered, March 12, 1997.
6.12 The Panel has considered but rejects the Complainant’s apparent contention that there may be a new registration each time the Domain Name is renewed. There is no evidence before the Panel of any change in the ownership of the Domain Name. Neither is this a case where the circumstances render the renewal to be considered as equivalent to a new registration. Although there has been a change of the use of the Domain Name due to the lack of viability of the “vanity” emails business model, there is no evidence that the change has been with the intent to benefit from the Complainant’s trade mark (see Eastman Sporto Group LLC v. Jim and Kenny, WIPO Case No. D2009-1688).
“Generally speaking, although a trade mark can form a basis for a UDRP action under the first element irrespective of its date, when a domain name is registered by the respondent before the complainant’s relied-upon trade mark right is shown to have been first registered (whether on a registered or unregistered basis), the registration of the domain name would not have been in bad faith because the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant’s then non-existent right.”
6.14 The Complainant’s registered trade mark rights postdate the registration of the Domain Name. Further there is no evidence that it has any unregistered rights to the “Patricks” name and certainly not that it predates the Domain Name. Whatever rights accrue from use of the <patricks.com.au> domain name – whether from 2010 as the Complainant alleges or 2012 as neutral sources indicate – likewise postdate the registration of the Domain Name by more than a decade. There is no possibility that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith as the Complainant was not in existence at the time and the Respondent could not therefore have contemplated the Complainant’s then non-existent right when he registered the Domain Name.
6.15 Notwithstanding the fact that the Panel has made a finding that the Complainant has failed to establish the first requirement of this element of the test (which means that the Complaint fails), it will nevertheless briefly comment on its finding in relation to bad faith use of the Domain Name. In the opinion of the Panel the Complainant has also failed to establish bad faith use.
6.16 The PPC links on the Website that were submitted in evidence do not in any way compete with the Complainant’s services or refer to the Complainant, the Complainant’s competitors, or the Complainant’s line of business.
6.17 The use of the Photograph does not amount to bad faith as it is a commonly used stock photo and has nothing to do with the CEO of the Complainant. Given the longtime use of this picture by eNom – something the Complainant or its representative could have discovered with minimal diligence – this allegation is preposterous.
6.18 Selling of a domain name is a legitimate business unless it is done in bad faith. Demanding a high price (particularly in response to an inquiry begun by the mark owner) is not in itself bad faith since the registration of the Domain Name was legitimate and at no time was the Complainant targeted. The proper price for any domain name is determined by market forces and not the opinion of the Complainant or of a UDRP panel. The Respondent’s offer to sell the Domain Name and the price it demanded from the Complainant do not amount to bad faith.
6.19 The Panel therefore also finds that the Complainant has failed to show bad faith use on the part of the Respondent.
F. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
6.20 This is one of the few cases in which a finding of abuse of the administrative proceeding is beyond obvious. While such a finding is always a matter of discretion,1 the Complainant’s empty rhetoric, mudslinging, and unsupported factual allegations require this Panel to impose the only sanction available to it.
6.21 Several aspects of the Complaint in this case constitute well-established reasons for imposing a finding of abuse:
(a) Complainant’s only real gripe is the price Respondent demanded for the Domain Name, making this a classic “Plan B” case. See Nova Holdings Limited, Nova International Limited, and G.R. Events Limited v. Manheim Equities, Inc. and Product Reports, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2015-0202. Use of the Policy to increase leverage in negotiations to purchase a domain name, “a highly improper purpose,”2 contradicts the Complainant’s undertaking (Complaint, paragraph 21; see Rules, paragraph 3(b)(xiii)), that “the information contained in this Complaint is to the best of Complainant’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass.”
(b) Complainant disregards settled Policy precedent on a number of matters, most notably the WIPO Overview 2.0’s paragraph 3.1 regarding registration of a disputed domain name long before the complainant obtained any trademark rights. Complainant has similarly ignored longstanding precedent that aggregation and sale of domain names, standing alone, is deemed legitimate (Id. paragraph 2.6, and cases there cited), that targeting a mark owner when registering a domain name is typically a necessary element of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy (Id. paragraph 3.2; see also Orient Express Travel Group Pty Ltd v. Mookstar Media Pty Ltd (ACN 083 167 293), WIPO Case No. DAU2015-0004); and that invocation of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy requires proof of prior examples of cybersquatting, not just accusatory and unsupported allegations (Id, paragraph 3.3; see also Nedbank Limited v. Gregg Ostrick,GNO, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2016-0515); Complainant presents not a single case in which this Respondent was found by a court or UDRP panel to have violated the Policy. Complainant appears to believe that strident and repeated noise can take the place of proof. Rather than explain why the Panel should ignore this Policy precedent the Complainant on no authority but its own judgment simply categorizes every action by the Respondent as “cybersquatting” or otherwise improper. This too violates the Rules paragraph 3(b)(xiii) undertaking, that “the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.” This undertaking is not satisfied by speculation, which is all this Complaint contains. Unsupported theories have no place in Policy proceedings.
(c) Complainant is represented by counsel. Professional representatives of parties in UDRP proceedings are expected to be aware of or at least familiarize themselves with the Policy and Policy precedent, and to abide by the Policy and Rules. See Pick Enterprises, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Woman to Woman Healthcare / Just Us Women Health Center f/k/a Woman to Woman Health Center, WIPO Case No. D2012-1555; IUNO Advokatpartnerselskab v. Angela Croom, WIPO Case No. D2011-0806; Dreamgirls, Inc. v. Dreamgirls Entertainment, WIPO Case No. D2006-0609.
6.22 Any of these circumstances justifies a finding of abuse. All in the same case, combined with the Complainant’s substituting intemperate language for substantive allegations and hard evidence, make such a finding obvious.
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
Richard G. Lyon
Date: June 21, 2016