ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION MYUNiDAYS Limited v. Ashantiplc Ltd / Customer _10 !"#$!! Case No. D 01%&1'"(

1. The Parties )he Complainant is MYUNiDAYS Limited o* Nottin+ham, United -in+dom o* .reat /ritain and Northern 0reland 12United -in+dom34, represented 56 Actons Solicitors, United -in+dom. )he 7espondent is Ashantiplc Ltd o* 8on+ -on+, China / Customer _10 !"#$!! o* Ne9ar:, Dela9are, United States o* America, represented 56 ;ohn /err6hill, <h.d., =s>., United States o* America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar )he disputed domain name ?unida6s.com@ 1the 2Domain Name34 is re+istered 9ith /ac:slap Domains, 0nc. 1the 27e+istrar34.

. Pro!ed"ra# $istor% )he Complaint 9as *iled 9ith the A0<B Ar5itration and Mediation Center 1the 2Center34 on Bcto5er %1, 01%. Bn Novem5er 1, 01%, the Center transmitted 56 email to the 7e+istrar a re>uest *or re+istrar veri*ication in connection 9ith the Domain Name. Bn Novem5er 1, 01%, the 7e+istrar transmitted 56 email to the Center its veri*ication response disclosin+ re+istrant and contact in*ormation *or the Domain Name 9hich di**ered *rom the named 7espondent and contact in*ormation in the Complaint. )he Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on Novem5er #, 01%, providin+ the re+istrant and contact in*ormation disclosed 56 the 7e+istrar, and invitin+ the Complainant to su5mit an amendment to the Complaint. )he Complainant *iled an amended Complaint on Novem5er 1#, 01%. )he Center veri*ied that the Complaint to+ether 9ith the amended Complaint satis*ied the *ormal re>uirements o* the Uni*orm Domain Name Dispute 7esolution <olic6 1the 2<olic63 or 2UD7<34, the 7ules *or Uni*orm Domain Name Dispute 7esolution <olic6 1the 27ules34, and the A0<B Supplemental 7ules *or Uni*orm Domain Name Dispute 7esolution <olic6 1the 2Supplemental 7ules34. 0n accordance 9ith the 7ules, para+raphs 1a4 and #1a4, the Center *ormall6 noti*ied the 7espondent o* the Complaint, and the proceedin+s commenced Novem5er 0, 01%. 0n accordance 9ith the 7ules, para+raph (1a4, the due date *or 7esponse 9as Decem5er 10, 01%. )he 7esponse 9as *iled 9ith the Center on

pa+e Decem5er 10, 01% )he Center appointed Nicholas Smith, Nic: ;. .ardner and Alan L. Lim5ur6 as panelists in this matter on ;anuar6 $, 01#. )he <anel *inds that it 9as properl6 constituted. =ach mem5er o* the <anel has su5mitted the Statement o* Acceptance and Declaration o* 0mpartialit6 and 0ndependence, as re>uired 56 the Center to ensure compliance 9ith the 7ules, para+raph !. Bn ;anuar6 $, 01#, the Complainant *iled a supplemental *ilin+. )he *ilin+ consisted o* a corporate document produced 56 the Complainant that provided an overvie9 o* the ComplainantCs 5usiness. )he *ilin+ 9as *or9arded to each mem5er o* the <anel 9ho has vie9ed the document. )he <anel has chosen in accordance 9ith para+raphs 10 and 1 o* the 7ules not to admit this document on the +rounds o* relevance and also 5ecause it could have 5een *iled 9ith the ori+inal Complaint. 0n an6 event the <anel notes that, had the document 5een admitted, the su5stantive outcome o* these proceedin+s 9ould not have chan+ed.

&. 'a!t"a# Ba!(gro"nd )he Complainant is a United -in+dom compan6 that o**ers a 9ide ran+e o* student discount products, 5oth in the United -in+dom and internationall6. 0t 9as esta5lished in March 011 and maintains a 9e5site at 2999.m6unida6s.com3. )he Complainant o9ns three re+istered trade mar:s that contain the 9ord 2Unida6s3 includin+ a United -in+dom trade mar: re+istration *or the 9ord mar: 2UNiDAYS3 1the 2UN0DAYS Mar:34, re+istration num5er "%($%", 9hich 9as applied *or on Septem5er (, 01 and re+istered on De5ruar6 1, 01%. )he UN0DAYS Mar: is re+istered *or +oods and services in classes $, 1", %(, %", %' and #% includin+ printed vouchers, issuin+ to:ens, coupons and vouchers o* value and compilin+ in*ormation a5out lo6alt6 and promotional schemes into computer data5ases. )he Domain Name ?unida6s.com@ 9as created on ;anuar6 1, 00(, 9ith the 7espondent havin+ 5een the re+istrant since 00!. 0t currentl6 resolves to a 9e5site 1the 27espondentEs Ae5site34 that contains a num5er o* lin:s to various third part6 sites, includin+ sites *or *inance&related topics includin+ de5t consolidation. )he 7espondentCs Ae5site also contains the statement 2)his Domain is not *or sale unless 6ou :no9 us3. )he 7espondent admits that the 7espondent has used the Domain Name *or paid advertisin+ services.

). Parties* Contentions A. Com+#ainant )he Complainant ma:es the *ollo9in+ contentionsF 1i4 1ii4 1iii4 that the Domain Name is identical or con*usin+l6 similar to the ComplainantCs UN0DAYS Mar:G that the 7espondent has no ri+hts nor an6 le+itimate interests in respect o* the Domain NameG and that the Domain Name has 5een re+istered and is 5ein+ used in 5ad *aith.

)he Complainant is the o9ner o* the UN0DAYS Mar: havin+ re+istered the UN0DAYS Mar: and has used the UN0DAYS Mar: consistentl6 since March #, 011. )here are no ri+hts or le+itimate interests held 56 the 7espondent in respect o* the Domain Name. Since the re+istration o* the Domain Name, the Domain Name has al9a6s 5een used to divert 0nternet tra**ic to a third part6 9e5site. )he 7espondent has also consistentl6 tried to sell the Domain Name, includin+ 56 advertisin+ on the 7espondentCs Ae5site. )he Complainant has made a num5er o* o**ers to purchase the Domain Name and the6 have 5een reHected 56 the 7espondent 9ith the 7espondent ma:in+ si+ni*icantl6 hi+her

pa+e % counter&o**ers. /6 reason o* those *acts the 7espondent holds no ri+hts or le+itimate interests in the Domain Name. )he Domain Name 9as re+istered and is 5ein+ used in 5ad *aith. Not9ithstandin+ the incorporation o* the Complainant su5se>uent to the re+istration o* the Domain Name, the 7espondent re+istered and used the Domain Name in 5ad *aith 5ecause, since re+istration the 7espondent has consistentl6 o**ered the Domain Name *or sale, and 5ecause since re+istration the 7espondent has redirected the Domain Name to a 9e5site that has no connection 9ith universities. )his conduct amounts to re+istration and use o* the Domain Name in 5ad *aith. B. Res+ondent )he Complainant has not proven that the Domain Name 9as re+istered and used in 5ad *aith 5ecause the Domain Name 9as re+istered in 00(, 9ith the 7espondent 5ecomin+ re+istrant in 00!. Neither the Complainant, nor its trade mar:, eIisted prior to 011. )he Complainant has provided evidence o* its trade mar: re+istration *or the UN0DAYS Mar: 5ut has provided no in*ormation a5out 9hat sort o* 5usiness the Complainant conducts or 9hat +ood9ill it has in the UN0DAYS Mar:. )he 7espondent has ri+hts and le+itimate interests in the Domain Name 56 reason o* the *act that the 7espondent re+istered the Domain Name prior to the Complainant havin+ an6 ri+hts in the UN0DAYS Mar:. )he *act that the 7espondent has used the Domain Name *or paid advertisin+ services does not result in the 7espondent lac:in+ ri+hts and le+itimate interests 9hen the 7espondent has 5een usin+ the Domain Name *or that purpose since 5e*ore the Complainant had an6 ri+hts in the UN0DAYS Mar:. A5sent some le+al impediment, o* 9hich the Complainant has advanced none, the 7espondent 9as entitled to re+ister the Domain Name in 00! and use the Domain Name since then. Accordin+l6 the Complainant has *ailed to sho9 the 7espondent lac:s ri+hts or le+itimate interests. )he evidence in this case is that the 7espondent has held the Domain Name prior to the ComplainantCs eIistence 1 0114. )he Domain Name could not have 5een re+istered and used in 5ad *aith. <ersons associated 9ith the Complainant, prior to its incorporation, made an o**er to purchase the Domain Name *rom the 7espondent. )he *act that this o**er 9as reHected and a counter o**er made does not sho9 re+istration or use in 5ad *aith. 0n 01 , prior to its application to re+ister the UN0DAYS Mar:, the Complainant made a second o**er to purchase the Domain Name, 9hich 9as also reHected. /6 reason o* the ComplainantCs a9areness that the 7espondent re+istered the Domain Name prior to the ComplainantCs eIistence, not onl6 should the Complaint *ail, 5ut this is a case 9here a *indin+ o* 7everse Domain Name 8iHac:in+ is appropriate.

,. Dis!"ssion and 'indings Under para+raph #1a4 o* the <olic6, the Complainant has the 5urden o* proo* in respect o* the *ollo9in+ three elementsF 1i4 )he Domain Name is identical or con*usin+l6 similar to a trademar: or service mar: in 9hich the Complainant has ri+htsG and )he 7espondent has no ri+hts or le+itimate interests in respect o* the Domain NameG and )he Domain Name has 5een re+istered and is 5ein+ used in 5ad *aith.

1ii4 1iii4

A. Identi!a# or Con-"sing#% Simi#ar )o prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mar: ri+hts and the Domain Name must

pa+e # 5e identical or con*usin+l6 similar to the ComplainantCs trade or service mar:. )he Complainant is the o9ner o* the UN0DAYS Mar:, havin+ re+istrations *or UN0DAYS as a trade mar: in the United -in+dom. As the 2.com3 +)LD ma6 5e discarded in considerin+ the identit6 or con*usin+ similarit6 5et9een a domain name and a mar:, the Domain Name is identical to the UN0DAYS Mar:. Conse>uentl6, the re>uirement o* para+raph #1a41i4 o* the <olic6 is satis*ied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests )he <anel notes that the s6stem o* domain name re+istration is, in +eneral terms, a 2*irst come, *irst served s6stem3 and, a5sent pre&eIistin+ ri+hts 9hich ma6 5e applica5le to impu+n a re+istration, the *irst person in time to re+ister a domain name 9ould normall6 5e entitled to use the domain name *or an6 le+itimate purpose it 9ishes. )here is no evidence at all 5e*ore the <anel to su++est that at the time the Domain Name 9as *irst re+istered, in 00(, or 9hen the 7espondent ac>uired it in 00!, an6 ri+hts eIisted 9hich mi+ht impu+n the re+istration. Speci*icall6 the Complainant did not eIist. Accordin+l6 there is no material 5e*ore the <anel 9hich 9ould lead to a conclusion that the 7espondent lac:s a ri+ht or le+itimate interest in the Domain Name. 8o9ever the <anel has 5een provided 9ith virtuall6 no in*ormation a5out the 7espondent or the nature o* its 5usiness or 9h6 it chose to ac>uire the Domain Name. .iven the <anelCs *indin+ that the 7espondent has not re+istered and used the Domain Name in 5ad *aith 1see 5elo94, the <anel concludes that in these circumstances it is not necessar6 to ma:e a *indin+ under this element o* the <olic6. C. Registered and .sed in Bad 'aith )he <olic6, para+raph #154 provides that *or the purposes o* para+raph #1a41iii4, the *ollo9in+ circumstances, in particular 5ut 9ithout limitation, i* *ound 56 the <anel to 5e present, shall 5e evidence o* the re+istration and use o* a domain name in 5ad *aithF 1i4 circumstances indicatin+ that the 7espondent has re+istered or has ac>uired the Domain Name primaril6 *or the purpose o* sellin+, rentin+, or other9ise trans*errin+ the Domain Name re+istration to the Complainant 9ho is the o9ners o* the trade mar: or service mar: or to a competitor o* the Complainant, *or valua5le consideration in eIcess o* its documented out&o*&poc:et costs directl6 related to the Domain NameG or )he 7espondent has re+istered the Domain Name in order to prevent the o9ner o* the trade mar: or service mar: *rom re*lectin+ the mar: in a correspondin+ domain name, provided that the 7espondent has en+a+ed in a pattern o* such conductG or )he 7espondent has re+istered the Domain Name primaril6 *or the purpose o* disruptin+ the 5usiness o* a competitorG or 56 usin+ the Domain Name, the 7espondent has intentionall6 attempted to attract, *or commercial +ain, 0nternet users to its 9e5site or other on&line location, 56 creatin+ a li:elihood o* con*usion 9ith the ComplainantCs mar: as to the source, sponsorship, a**iliation, or endorsement o* the 7espondentCs 9e5site or location or o* a product or service on the 7espondentCs 9e5site or location. 1<olic6, para+raph #1544

1ii4

1iii4

1iv4

)he Domain Name 9as re+istered in 00(, 9ith the 7espondent ta:in+ possession o* the Domain Name in 00!. )he Complainant 9as incorporated on March #, 011 and the UN0DAYS Mar: 9as re+istered on De5ruar6 1, 01%. =ven ta:in+ the ComplainantCs evidence at its hi+hest, there is no possi5ilit6 that the 7espondent, 9hen it ac>uired the Domain Name in 00!, could have 5een a9are o* the Complainant or its ri+hts in the UN0DAYS Mar:F )he Complainant simpl6 did not eIist. Dor this reason, the Domain Name 9as not re+istered in 5ad *aith. )he Complainant has ar+ued that 5ad *aith re+istration and use can 5e *ound 56 the *act that the 7espondentCs Ae5site redirects to 9hat appears to 5e a pa6&per&clic: 9e5pa+e, and that the 7espondent is

pa+e ( see:in+ to sell the Domain Name and received o**ers *rom the Complainant, reHected them and made si+ni*icantl6 hi+her counter&o**ers. )hese ar+uments are unpersuasive to this <anel. <ara+raph #1541i4 o* the <olic6 speci*icall6 re*ers to the 7espondent ac>uirin+ the Domain Name primaril6 *or the purpose o* sellin+ the Domain Name to the Complainant or a competitor o* the Complainant *or valua5le consideration. )he Complainant *ails to eIplain ho9 the 7espondent could ac>uire the Domain Name *or this purpose 9hen the Complainant did not eIist at the time o* the ac>uisition and 9ould not eIist *or another *our 6ears. )he mere *act that the 7espondent has chosen to sell the Domain Name *or valua5le consideration is not 56 itsel* evidence that the 7espondent ac>uired the Domain Name *or the purpose o* sellin+ the Domain Name to the Complainant or a competitor o* the Complainant *or valua5le consideration. <ara+raph #1541iv4 o* the <olic6 re>uires a *indin+ that the 7espondent is usin+ or has used the Domain Name intentionall6 to attempt to attract, *or commercial +ain, 0nternet users to its 9e5site, 56 creatin+ a li:elihood o* con*usion 9ith the ComplainantCs mar:. 0n the present proceedin+ the evidence 5e*ore the <anel su++ests that the 7espondent has used the Domain Name *or monetisation purposes *or " 6ears. )here is no evidence that the 7espondent has done so 56 creatin+ a li:elihood o* con*usion 9ith the UN0DAYS Mar:. Not onl6 does the 7espondentCs Ae5site ma:e no re*erence to the Complainant or its area o* 5usiness, it 9ould have 5een literall6 impossi5le *or the 7espondent to do have had an6 such intent in the period o* time a*ter the 7espondent ac>uired the Domain Name prior to the ComplainantCs incorporation. )he A0<B Bvervie9 o* A0<B <anel Jie9s on Selected UD7< Kuestions, Second =dition 12A0<B Bvervie9 .034, states in response to the >uestion 2Can 5ad *aith 5e *ound i* the disputed domain name 9as re+istered 5e*ore the trademar: 9as re+istered or 5e*ore unre+istered trademar: ri+hts 9ere ac>uiredL3 thatF 2Consensus vie9F .enerall6 spea:in+, althou+h a trademar: can *orm a 5asis *or a UD7< action under the *irst element irrespective o* its date Msee *urther para+raph 1.# a5oveN, 9hen a domain name is re+istered 56 the respondent 5e*ore the complainantEs relied&upon trademar: ri+ht is sho9n to have 5een *irst esta5lished 19hether on a re+istered or unre+istered 5asis4, the re+istration o* the domain name 9ould not have 5een in 5ad *aith 5ecause the re+istrant could not have contemplated the complainantEs then non&eIistent ri+ht.3 Ahile there have 5een cases 9here 5ad *aith has 5een *ound 9hen the re+istration too: place prior to the ac>uisition o* trade mar: ri+hts, such cases involve situations 9here, at the time o* re+istration the respondent is clearl6 a9are o* the complainant, and it is clear that the aim o* the re+istration 9as to ta:e advanta+e o* the con*usion 5et9een the domain name and an6 potential complainant ri+hts. )his is not such a matter. )he Complainant did not eIist at the time the 7espondent ac>uired the Domain Name. )he <anel *inds that the 7espondent has not re+istered and used the Domain Name in 5ad *aith. D. Re/erse Domain Name $i0a!(ing <ara+raph 1(1e4 o* the <olic6 provides that i* a*ter considerin+ the su5missions the panel *inds that the complaint 9as 5rou+ht in 5ad *aith, *or eIample in an attempt at 7everse Domain Name 8iHac:in+ or 9as 5rou+ht primaril6 to harass the domain&name holder, the panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint 9as 5rou+ht in 5ad *aith and constitutes an a5use o* the administrative proceedin+. 0n Jazeera Space Channel TV Station v. AJ Publishing aka Aljazeera Publishing , A0<B Case No. D 00(&0%0$, the maHorit6 o* the three&mem5er panel noted that the onus o* provin+ that a complainant has acted in 5ad *aith is on the 7espondent, and that mere lac: o* success o* the complaint is not o* itsel* su**icient to constitute reverse domain name hiHac:in+. )he maHorit6 in Jazeera 9ent on to note thatF 2Alle+ations o* reverse domain name hiHac:in+ have 5een upheld in circumstances 9here a respondentEs use o* a domain name could not, under an6 *air interpretation o* the *acts, have constituted 5ad *aith, and 9here a reasona5le investi+ation 9ould have revealed the 9ea:nesses in an6 potential complaint under the <olic6 1see Goldline International Inc v. Gold !ine, A0<B Case No. D 000&11(14. See also "eutsche #elle v. "ia$ond#are !i$ited, A0<B Case No. D 000&1 0 , 9here an alle+ation o* reverse domain name hiHac:in+ 9as upheld in circumstances 9here the

pa+e " complainant :ne9 that the respondent used the at&issue domain name as part o* a bona %ide 5usiness, and 9here the re+istration date o* the at&issue domain name preceded the dates o* the complainantEs relevant trademar: re+istrations.3 )he three&mem5er panel in &ell !i$ited v. 'lti$ate Search, A0<B Case No. D 00(&00$1 noted that 9hether a complainant should have appreciated at the outset that its complaint could not succeed, 9ill o*ten 5e an important consideration. 0n the vie9 o* the <anel this is a Complaint 9hich should never have 5een launched. )he Complainant :ne9 that the Domain Name 9as re+istered nearl6 " 6ears 5e*ore the Complainant came into eIistence, let alone 9hen it ac>uired an6 ri+hts in the UN0DAYS Mar:. 0t made t9o o**ers to purchase the Domain Name, and *ollo9in+ the reHection o* those o**ers and the re+istration o* the UN0DAYS Mar:, chose to 5rin+ this Complaint. No attempt 9as made to demonstrate the eIistence o* an6 earlier ri+hts or to address the issue arisin+ *rom the disparit6 in dates. )he disparit6 9as mentioned in passin+ in the conteIt o* a su5mission that the actions o* the 7espondent, in o**erin+ the Domain Name *or sale and in *ailin+ to use the Domain Name 19hich 9as incorrect, the Domain Name pointed to a pa6&per&clic: 9e5pa+e4, someho9 resulted in the 7espondent re+isterin+ and usin+ the Domain Name in 5ad *aith. .iven the nature o* the <olic6 and previousl6 decided cases on this issue, this 9as an ar+ument that had no reasona5le prospects o* success. )he Complainant, 9hich is le+all6 represented, should have appreciated that it 9as commencin+ a proceedin+ that had no reasona5le prospect o* success. )he <anel *inds that the Complaint 9as 5rou+ht in 5ad *aith and constitutes an a5use o* the administrative proceedin+.

1. De!ision Dor the *ore+oin+ reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Ni!ho#as Smith <residin+ <anelist

Ni!( 2. 3ardner <anelist

A#an L. Lim4"r% <anelist DateF ;anuar6 1, 01#