Источник информации:
официальный сайт ВОИС

Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Complainant is RÁDIO GLOBO S.A., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Brazil, with its principal place of business located at Rua do Russel, 434 – 5° andar, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 22210010.

Respondent is RÁDIO MORENA, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Brazil, with its principal place of business located at Av. Buerarema 819 Itabuna, Bahia 45600-000, Brazil. 

The domain name under dispute is "globofm.com" (the "Domain Name").

The registrar of the domain name under dispute is Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI" or the Registrar), with business address in Herndon, Virginia, USA.

On November 10, 2000, and November 13, 2000, Complainant submitted its Complaint through e-mail and hardcopy, respectively, with the required filing fee for a single-member Panel, to the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "WIPO Center"), in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the " Rules") approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999, and WIPO’s Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("WIPO’s Supplemental Rules).

On November 27, 2000, WIPO sent a "Request for Registrar Verification" via email to NSI requesting, a confirmation that NSI had received a copy of the complaint; that the domain name under dispute is registered with NSI; that Respondent is the current registrant of such domain name and full contacts details available under the WHOIS database. On December 1, 2000, WIPO received via e-mail from NSI the "Network Solutions’ Verification Response" confirming the above as well as that the Domain Name is currently registered to Respondent and is in "active" status, and that a certain Network Solutions 5.0 Service Agreement is in effect.

WIPO completed a "Formal Requirements Compliance Checklist". It is worth mentioning that the undersigned Panel has independently determined and agrees with WIPO’s assessment that the Complaint is in formal compliance with the requirements of the Policy, the Rules, and WIPO’s Supplemental Rules.

On December 14, 2000, WIPO properly sent via e-mail and hardcopy through express mail to Respondent and to its administrative, technical, billing and zone contacts, a "Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceedings" enclosing copy of Complainant’s complaint and confirming the formal initiation of this proceedings as of such date, and granting a term for providing a response no latter that January 2, 2001. Furthermore, hardcopy of such Complaint as confirmed by Complainant was also previously sent by Complainant to Respondent on November 9, 2000. A copy has also been communicated to the ICANN and to the Registrar. This Panel considers that the complaint was properly notified to the registered domain-name holder, the technical contact, and the administrative contact as provided for in paragraph 2 (a) of the Rules.

This Panel considers that the complaint was properly notified to the registered domain-name holder, as it achieved actual notice, and to the administrative contact as provided for in paragraph 2(a) of the Rules.

On December 31, 2000, Respondent submitted its Response to the Complaint through e-mail, to the WIPO Center. On January 11, 2001, Respondent submitted via e-mail additional information regarding domains used by Complainant and informing that Complainant was concentrating all of their web sites under globo.com.

Respondent failed to elect whether the dispute be decided by a single-member or by a three-member, and therefore a single Panelist was appointed as proposed by the Complainant, as may be evidenced from section 6 of Complainant’s complaint.

On February 13, 2001, the undersigned received an invitation to participate as Panelist in the referred to domain name dispute proceeding. On February 13, 2001, the undersigned signed and sent to the WIPO, a Statement of Acceptance to participate as Single Member Panelist and a Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.

On February 26, 2001, WIPO sent to Complainant and Respondent a "Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date", appointing Pedro Buchanan as Sole Panelist and scheduling March 12, 2001, as the date for issuance for the Panel’s decision, notifying the above pursuant to paragraphs 6(f) and 15(b) of the Rules. On the same date, WIPO transferred the case file to the Sole Panelist, with copy being sent to Complainant and Respondent.

The Panel has not received any further requests from Complainant or Respondent regarding other submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information, statements or documents from the parties, nor the need as an exceptional matter, to hold any in-person hearings as necessary for deciding the complaint, as provided for in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Rules. Therefore, the Panel has decided to proceed under the customary expedited nature contemplated for this type of domain name dispute proceedings.

The language of the proceeding is English, as being the language of the domain registration and Service Agreement, pursuant to paragraph 11 (a) of the Rules.

Complainant is engaged in the production of radio programs and radio broadcasting and entertainment services. Complainant is a company of the SISTEMA GLOBO DE RÁDIO as well as of the group Organizações Globo that was founded on 1944, under the laws of Brazil and is the owner of the mark GLOBO FM which has been used by Complainant in Brazil and other countries to identify services related to radio and entertainment business. The Complainant has used the trademark since 1973, to identify one of the radio stations owned by the SISTEMA GLOBO DE RÁDIO. RÁDIO GLOBO is the one of the biggest and most important companies engaged in the radio and entertainment business in Brazil. The SISTEMA GLOBO DE RÁDIO, which includes Complainant and other companies of the Organizações Globo, is composed by seven AM radio broadcasting stations, six FM and sixteen affiliate stations and it is present in twenty one Brazilian cities.

The Complainant has an active presence on the Internet and during the last few years RÁDIO GLOBO has started the broadcasting of its radio programs, including the GLOBO FM radio station programming, over the Internet through the "radioglobo.com.br" web site. Complainant also utilizes its GLOBO FM mark on such web site.

In support of its Complaint, Complainant submitted copies of the following Trademark Applications:

A) Application n° 821 124 013 for GLOBO FM filed before the Brazilian Trademark Office on October 9, 1998, to cover communication, publicity and advertising services in class 38.10;

B) Application n° 821 124 005 for GLOBO FM filed before the Brazilian Trademark Office on October 9, 1998, to cover entertainment services in classes 41.20 and 41.40.

Complainant has continuously and extensively advertised and promoted its GLOBO FM mark for more than 27 years in numerous communications media throughout Brazil and other countries.

Complainant has developed substantial goodwill and name and brand recognition in its GLOBO FM mark, based on its long and extensive use of GLOBO FM mark.

That on November 8, 2000, in the web site "bankofdomains.com" the "globofm.com" domain name was offered for sale for U$ 2,000.00 and invited offers to buy the domain name at issue in this dispute, as well as other domain names. Furthermore, the "globofm.com" domain name was offered for sale on the "greatdomains.com" web site and advertised as "a nice name for a radio station. In Brazil is a big one".

Respondent is the main radio station from Itabuna, BA, Brazil, broadcasting since 1987, in a region where it leads the audience. It belongs to a communications group that includes one of the most important newspapers in the state of Bahia (A Regiao), a small record company (Jupara Records), a marketing consultant firm (Morena Pro), a ISP (Grapiuna), a newspaper based in London (The Brazilian), a virtual newspaper (London Daily) and the specialized portal Calango.com.

It has its own website "www.morena.com.br" and also owns some other websites that complements its online projects, including verao.com.br, jornalhoje.com and thebigdoor.com.br.

Respondent claims to be the first station in Latin America to play only digitally recorded music and commercials. It was the first station in Bahia to broadcast online and one of the few to do this broadcasting 24 hours a day, totally live.

Respondent indicated that although it is a very successful company, it did not had the same amount of money as the big companies like TV Globo, and therefore it needed to be more creative on its marketing actions. That one way they found to promote a website without spending any money at all was to list it for sale on the auction sites while they worked on the site. That they did it first with the London Daily newspaper, in 1998, with great success as they had 1,500 visitors in one week before actually having any content online. And after they put the content online it grew fast and today they have in excess of 50,000 unique visitors a month. That they have been doing the same with their sites verao.com.br, jornalhoje.com, thebigdoor.com and globofm.com. That such is the reason why globofm.com was listed in GreatDomains.com and BankofDomains until November 9th, when they finally launched the website with its content online. That it was unfortunate that Complainant’s lawyers printed the previous state of the website, just one day before the change.

A. Complainant

That Respondent has registered the domain name "globofm.com" for the purpose of selling or renting it to Complainant or to third parties, and is not using the domain name for any legitimate purposes. The "globofm.com" domain name is identical, and therefore confusingly similar, to Complainant’s respective GLOBO FM mark, in appearance, pronunciation and sound. That the addition of ".com" to the domain name is necessary element of the domain names, and not voluntary and arbitrarily chosen additions; thus, the ".com" does not serve to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s GLOBO FM mark. That Complainant’s GLOBO FM mark is uniquely associated with Complainant and its radio and entertainment products and services.

That the GLOBO FM mark is not legitimately used by any other individual or entity (other than entities properly affiliated with Complainant), nor in relation to products or services other than those offered by Complainant. That for, these reasons, the GLOBO FM mark and words uniquely suggest Complainant’s radio and entertainment products and services.

That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the "globofm.com" domain name. That Respondent’s use of the "globofm.com" domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. That Respondent: is not commonly known or identified by the name "GLOBO FM"; does not operate a business or other organization commonly known as GLOBO FM or offer any goods or services under the GLOBO FM mark; has not acquired trademark or service mark rights for the GLOBO FM mark in Brazil; and, is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name but has offered for sale the "globofm.com" domain name.

That the "globofm.com" domain name has been registered in bad faith. That Respondent: does not conduct any legitimate commercial or noncommercial business under the GLOBO FM mark; has registered the "globofm.com" domain name for the purpose of selling or renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; has registered the "globofm.com" domain name in order to prevent Complainant, as the owner of the GLOBO FM mark, from reflecting its mark in corresponding domain name unless Complainant pays to purchase or rent the domain name from Respondent; is diverting consumers away from the official site of Complainant by linking Internet users to "bankofdomains.com" web site and making it difficult for Complainant’s customers and the general public to locate Complainant’s official web site, thereby disrupting Complainant’s business.

That Respondent’s use of the "globofm.com" domain name is diluting and weakening the unique and distinctive significance of Complainant’s GLOBO FM mark.

That although the Respondent registered the "globofm.com" domain name before the filing of Complainant’s above-mentioned Brazilian service mark applications for GLOBO FM, the uninterrupted use of the GLOBO FM mark since 1973, supports Complainant’s exclusive right to use that mark on and in connection with its products and services.

That Respondent is in the practice of cybersquatting as it has registered in its own name a number of third parties well-known marks such as "xuxapark.com" which corresponds to a registered mark of Xuxa Promoções e Produções Artнsticas Ltda (XUXA is a famous television shows presenter in Brazil and South America); and "jornalhoje.com" which corresponds to a registered mark of TV Globo Ltda (JORNAL HOJE is a well-known television news programs airing daily).

That Respondent registered the "jornalnacional.com" and "globoesporte.com" domain names with the purposes of renting or selling them to TV Globo Ltda. a related company with Complainant, which is the owner of the JORNAL NACIONAL and GLOBOESPORTE trademarks in Brazil. That a Complaint was filed against Respondent and the Administrative Panel of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center decided for the transfer of these domain names to TV Globo Ltda. understanding that Mr. Marcel Leal, administrative contact for Respondent, registered these domains names in bad faith.

Lastly, Complainant has requested under paragraph 4 (i) of the Policy, that the Administrative Panel appointed in this proceeding issue a decision ordering that the contested domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

That in 1998, it consulted the trademark office in Brazil about the Globofm name and found that it was not a trademark nor had any application filled with them.

That their new service was aimed to provide a world view on radio, both listing the best stations around the globe ("globo" in English) and other radio business information, like different charts and industry news. That Respondent needed a name with a worldly implication, so it chooses Globofm (fm from the globe, the earth).

That it is false that the Complainant is the owner of the mark GLOBO FM. That Globo FM is not a mark under Brazilian law. That the fact that Radio Globo filled an application does not guarantee that it will be granted nor guarantee any rights before the certificate being issued.

That under the Industrial Property Law #9.279, from 14 May 1996, a trademark is granted by owning the signed certificate, which will be issued after approval of the application. That such certificate is considered granted on the date of its official publication. That the INPI acts about industrial properties only produce any effects after it is published on the official newspaper.

That Complainant’s application for the trademark Globo FM was only accepted and has not been analyzed nor granted a certificate, which means it is not a trademark and has no rights to be protected as a mark.

That Complainant has never promoted outside Brazil. That an FM radio is a very local service, reaching only a city or two. That Complainant owns 29 stations (6 FM) in 21 cities. That Brazil has more than 5,000 cities, most of which never heard of Radio Globo. That Globo is a well-known name in television, but is far from being a known name in radio. That Radio Morena may be more remembered as an important radio station than any of Globo affiliates, and that Respondent’s Morena's website has more visitors than Globo's affiliates. That Globo FM does not lead the audience in any of the cities it exists. That it is not even top 5, according to Ibope at www.ibope.com.br.

Respondent claims that he is not in the practice of cybersquatting as they have never approached anyone to sell a domain. Nor can the Complainant prove that.

That with respect to the registration of a number of third parties well-known marks such as "xuxapark.com" that the same is a registered mark of Xuxa Promoções e Produções Artнsticas Ltda and is not owned by Respondent. That it is free for registering; that with respect to "jornalhoje.com", JORNAL HOJE is registered mark of TV Globo Ltda, and is a well-known television news programs airing daily. That the trademark on Jornal Hoje owned by Globo is not valid for Internet projects and that Respondent’s lawyer has cleared it. Besides that there is more than one trademark for "hoje" newspapers.

That there is nothing in the Brazilian law that supports that the uninterrupted use of the GLOBO FM mark since 1973, supports Complainant’s exclusive right to use that mark on and in connection with its products and services, but in fact, that the law is very clear: a mark is only protected after being granted a certificate from the Brazilian Trademark Office.

That the GLOBO FM mark is not uniquely associated with Complainant and its radio and entertainment products and services as there are many companies with legitimate "Globo FM" trademarks both in Brazil and in other countries like the US, Mexico, Italy ("wjfd.com" - Globo FM. WJFD 270 Union Street - New Bedford, MA 2740 - USA. Broadcasting since 1975, for more than 200.000 Portuguese listeners living the United States East coast; 93.9 XHSC-FM FM Globo, Guadalajara, Mexico- "radioglobo.it" - Radio Globo, Roma, Italy- "globo897.com" Globo FM, Mazatlan, Mexico –"fmglobo.com.mx" - Globo FM, Mexico City, Mexico Globo FM, Valera, Venezuela.

That as a worldwide domain, globofm.com is hardly "uniquely associated" with Radio Globo.

That Respondent’s use of the "globofm.com" domain name is indeed in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. That there are few radio reference websites on the Internet. That Globofm.com complements Morena FM website's Radio Zone section (www.morena.com.br/eng/info/ew-rad.htm).

That the link of "globofm.com" on the Internet to "bankofdomains.com" was marketing action.

That Respondent is known or identified by the name GLOBO FM since November 9th, on the web, and that that Radio Globo is also not identified by the name Globo FM. That their stations are promoted by the names "Sistema Globo de Radio", "Globo No Ar" and "RadioClick".

That even the domain "globofm.com.br" (owned by Radio Globo) redirects the visitor to "radioclick.com.br/globonoar/index.htm". That the Complainant does not care about globofm.com the domain. That they don't even use the globofm.com.br one. That they just want to monopolize all the addresses with "globo" name on the net.

That Respondent does operate a business or organization commonly known as GLOBO FM and offers goods or services under the GLOBO FM mark.

Respondent recognizes that they have not acquired a trademark or service mark rights for the GLOBO FM mark in Brazil, nor has the Complainant. That Globo FM is not a trademark in Brazil.

That Respondent is making a legitimate use of the domain.

That Respondent listed the domain name under dispute only as a creative marketing action and not with the purpose selling or renting or otherwise transferring the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of Respondentґs documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.

That Respondent did not registered the domain name in order to prevent Complainant, as the owner of the GLOBO FM mark, from reflecting its mark in corresponding domain name.

Respondent claims that the Internet is supposed to be a democratic place, where every person has a space to promote its own services, products, thoughts, ideas.

That the domain name, by the principle that created it, is granted in a "first come, first served". That he agrees that cybersquatting must be fought, but it is very important to distinguish between a domain that is registered only for selling it to a company already with that trademark, and a domain registered long before a company has a trademark.

That a company cannot apply for a trademark today and claim a protection over a domain registered some time before that.

That Radio Globo failed as a company when it decided not to apply for a trademark on Globo FM in 1973, when it was created. It only decided to apply for that trademark in 1998, 25 long years later and four months after Respondent registered the domain for a legitimate project.

That Complainant failed to prove all three points stated on WIPO'S rules (sic), especially on the existence of a trademark.

The Panel considers that the Respondent by registering the contested domain name with Network Solutions, Inc. (an ICANN accredited domain name registrar), it agreed to be bound by all terms and conditions of Network Solutions Service Agreement, and any pertinent rule or policy, and particularly agreed to be bound by the Policy (incorporated and made a part of the Service Agreement by reference), which policies request that proceedings be conducted according to the Rules and the selected administrative-dispute-resolution service provider's supplemental rules, in the present case being the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Therefore, the dispute subject matter of this proceeding is within the scope of the above mentioned agreements and policy, and this Panel has jurisdiction to decide this dispute.

Furthermore, the Panel considers that in the same manner by entering into the above mentioned Service Agreement, the Respondent agreed and warranted that neither the registration of its domain name nor the manner in which it may intend to use such domain name will directly or indirectly infringe the legal rights of a third party, and that in order to resolve a dispute under the Policy, Respondent’s domain name registration services may be suspended, cancelled or transferred.

The Panel also particularly considers that it is essential to dispute resolution proceedings that fundamental due process requirements be met.

Such requirements include that the parties and particularly the Respondent in this case be given adequate notice of proceedings initiated against them; that the parties may have a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond, exercise their rights and to present their respective cases; that the composition of this Panel be properly made and the parties be notified of the appointment of this Panel; and, that both parties be treated with equality in these administrative proceedings.

In the case subject matter of this proceedings, the Panel is satisfied that these proceedings have been carried out by complying with such elemental due diligence requirements, and particularly contemplating the notification of the filing of the Complaint and the initiation of these proceedings giving the Respondent a right to respond. That there is sufficient and adequate evidence confirming the above.

Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove the presence of each of the following elements: (i) that the domain name registered by the Respondent 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.

This Panel recognizes the universal principle that a trademark in general is considered as that visible sign that distinguishes products or services from others of the same species or class in the market. That the previous and continuous use of such distinctive visible sign by anyone generates certain rights and particularly certain legal expectations. That the right to the exclusive use of a trademark is obtained through the registration of such trademark before the relevant Intellectual Property Authorities.

That it is a fact that has not been contested by Respondent, that the Complainant has used the GLOBO FM mark since 1973. That the GLOBO FM is a mark notoriously known in the country where Complainant and Respondent carry on their business activities. That such mark is clearly related to the radio and entertainment business and particularly to Complainant’s well-known radio station programming in Brazil (as recognized and promoted for sale by Respondent: "a nice name for a radio station. In Brazil is a big one"). That the previous use of such mark is notoriously known by Respondent as both parties are well known and recognized leading radio stations in Brazil.

That it is imperative to distinguish the rights that are generated from a trademark registration, from those that are born and generated from the repetitive use of a distinctive sign that identifies the holder of such trademark. That it is unquestionable that the trademark legislation recognizes rights over a mark, which are definitively based on the previous use.

This Panel considers that even if a trademark is not yet approved by the authorities and the relevant certificate is not yet granted, this does not mean that such a trademark does not exist, with substantial goodwill generated on someone’s businesses, with name and brand recognition, and with certain expectation rights that may become reality as soon as the authority grants such recognition and validates such prior use as constitutive of the right to such trademark.

The GLOBO FM is not a registered mark that may entitle its owner to its exclusive use in the general business arena. Nevertheless, GLOBO FM definitively constitutes a mark to which the Complainant has rights. Its previous long-term use entitles the Complainant to request the national and international registration of such mark. It also grants the Complainant the right to object and request the nullification of other similar marks, even if previously registered. It definitively grants the Complainant the right to use such mark and to receive other benefits derived from such mark. Furthermore, the GLOBO FM mark is not and has not been registered by Respondent, nor Respondent demonstrated to have any right or title upon such mark, prior to the rights, that to such mark, have been evidenced by Complainant.

The registration provides the "exclusive right" to the use of a trademark within a specific line of business activity. The Panel considers that this proceeding does not pretend to determine who has the right to the exclusive use of a mark within a specific line of business activity, but only to determine who has the priority and right to use a domain name in the Internet.

The first element that the Complainant must prove under Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy is that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Panel notes that the entire mark "GLOBO FM" is included in the domain name, the only addition, being the ".com." The addition of the phrase is non-descriptive and does not alter the value of the mark represented in the domain name. In addition, the .com is a necessary element required for registration of any domain name, and not voluntary and arbitrarily chosen additions to be included by registering parties.

This Panel considers that Complainant has rights over the GLOBO FM mark, and that this mark is identical to the domain name that has been registered by the Respondent. Respondent’s Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s GLOBO FM mark and to the name of one of Complainant’s radio station programming.

This Panel also considers that it is within the spirit of the Internet as well as within that of International Agreements such as the Paris Convention on Intellectual Property that was adopted in Stockholm on July 14, 1967, to prohibit unfair competition, considering as such, those acts that are capable of creating confusion with respect to the establishments, products or activities of a competitor. The Paris Convention considers as such, any competition act, which is contrary to the honest uses on industrial or commercial matters. Under such Convention it is sufficient to provide evidence that the competitor may subtract for its benefit, the attention from the clientele of a competitor, without compromising or making use of its own forces, resources or inventive, but simply by performing imitation acts, to be considered as carrying on unfair competition practices.

This Panel considers that Respondent, by registering the domain name under dispute, under a very well know GLOBO FM mark which Respondent perfectly knew that has been used for a very long period of time by Complainant, was clearly pretending to unfairly compete with Complainant and to subtract for its benefit the attention from the clientele of its Competitor, without compromising or making use of its own forces, resources or inventive, but simply by performing such imitation acts in the same line of business activities and within the same regional market from which both parties operate.

This Panel finds that there is no indication that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name as it has not used or prepared to use the "globofm.com" domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated under Paragraph 4 (c) (i) of the Policy; nor that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain name as contemplated under Paragraph 4 (c) (ii) of the Policy; nor that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue as contemplated under Paragraph 4 (c) (iii) of the Policy.

The Panel also finds that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith, in particular but without limitation, pursuant to Paragraph 4 (b) (i) of the Policy, in view that there are circumstances and conclusive evidence indicating that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; and pursuant to Paragraph 4 (b) (iv) of the Policy, in view that Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondents’ website.

Lastly, it is hereby noted that no settlement has been reached by the Parties and made known to this Panel prior to the rendering of this Panel’s decision, which may eventually affect or give ground for termination of this administrative proceedings as provided for under paragraph 17(a) of the Rules, nor is this Panel aware of the existence or initiation of any other type of legal proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution, regarding the domain name dispute as contemplated under paragraph 4 (k) of the Policy.

Therefore, and in consideration to the Complaint’s compliance with the formal requirements for this domain dispute proceeding, to the factual evidence and legal contentions that were submitted, to the conclusive confirmation of the presence of each of the elements contemplated in Paragraph 4 (a) (i), (ii), and (iii) of the Policy, and on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and other applicable rules and principles of law, as directed by paragraphs 14 (a) and (b) and 15 (a) of the Rules, this Panel decides:

(1) that the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical to the name of Complainant’s GLOBO FM radio station programming and to Complainant’s mark GLOBO FM.

(2) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the "globofm.com" Domain Name; and

(3) that the "globofm.com" Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.

Therefore, the Panel requires, pursuant to what is provided for under Paragraphs 3 (c) and 4 (i) of the Policy, that the domain name "globofm.com" be transferred to RÁDIO GLOBO S.A., Complainant.

Pedro W. Buchanan
Sole Panelist

Dated: March 22, 2001