For SpA v. Camon Intelli-Pet for dominance walkydogusa.com single panelist, Tony Willoughby, expressed concern about the fact that panelists who will interpret the policies governing the UDRP procedures to meet the needs of brand owners beyond their responsibilities. The theme should be more a matter of lawmakers, not panelists.
The facts of the case are essentially the following:
1. Plaintiff and defendant are competitors. They sell pet products. In particular the applicant sells one called WALKYDOG. The defendant's similar product called K-9 BIKE JOGGER.
2. The applicant acquired the Italian company in 2007 Bice wearing trademark and domain WALKYDOG walkydog.com. At that time the defendant was WALKYDOG distributor for U.S. Bice.
3. This domain was registered at stake for the defendant in 2003.
The defendant did not participate in the UDRP process.
Panelist accepts that the domain is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark and that the respondent has no rights or interests legímos in it, and was once DOG WALKY product dealer, but now using the domain coincides with the brand without being authorized by the owner of the brand and to promote a similar product from the competition.
Read the rest of this article ...
