Comments

• smlevy42 03:09 pm 13-Feb-2017 Quite an interesting scenario which leads one to question whether this case was decided on what might be described as a technicality. By almost any standard it appears as if the Respondent is knowingly infringing upon the Complainant's trademark (identical name, identical services, prior relationship). There are a number of UDRP cases in which respondent's appear to use relevant company or trade names (e.g., in the copyright notice appearing at the bottom of the site) but this has been overcome by the fact that the domain and its website content are clearly infringing upon the complainant's mark. Perhaps the main difference here is simply the more substantial nature of the evidence - the Effortless Rider name actually appears in the Whois record and the corporate registration certificate was submitted into evidence by the Complainant.

• UDRPcommentaries (Gerald M. Levine) 02:49 am 18-Feb-2017 I agree to the technicality (although misreading of the law is an alternative), but I also think this is one of those cases for which it can be said that it makes a difference which panelist is appointed.