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

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Eurochannel Inc. v. Sarah Staar

Case No. D2007-0165

 

1. The Parties

Complainant is Eurochannel Inc., Miami Beach, Florida, United States of America, represented by WermuthLaw P.A., United States of America.

Respondent is Sarah Staar, Intervision TV Limited, London, England SE23 2ER, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <eurochannel-tv.com> is registered with Tucows, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 7, 2007. On February 7, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Tucows, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On February 9, 2007, Tucows Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 16, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 8, 2007. The Response was filed with the Center on March 8, 2007.

The Center appointed Ross Carson as the sole panelist in this matter on March 27, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. 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.

On March 20, 2007, Complainant submitted a Supplemental Filing to the Center with a copy to Respondent. The Supplemental Filing includes evidence relating to a Benelux trademark for “Eurochannel TV” and design filed January 27, 2007 by an individual in the Netherlands who appears to be an officer of a company in the Netherlands having a business association with Intervision TV Limited. A copy of the particulars of the Benelux trademark filed January 27, 2007 in the Dutch language obtained from the records in the Benelux Trademarks Office was attached as Annex B to the Response. Attached as Exhibit 1 to the Supplemental Filing were copies of e-mail correspondence between Complainant and Respondent including as an attachment a cease and desist letter dated January 23, 2007 which predates the date of filing of the Benelux trademark application. As the information relating to the Benelux trademark filing is relevant in this proceeding and could not reasonably have been anticipated by Complainant, the Panel accepts the Supplemental Filing.

 

4. Factual Background

Complainant is the owner of the trademark EUROCHANNEL and design registered in the European Community as Registration No. 004025938 in classes 38, 41 and 42. The Community trademark was registered on December 14, 2005. Complainant is also the owner of the trademark EUROCHANNEL in combination with what appears to be a stylized E registered in the United States of America as Registration Number 2972651 on July 19, 2005 in respect of services in international classes 38 and 41. Complainant is also the owner of registrations for the trademark EUROCHANNEL in numerous countries in Latin America and the Caribbean in respect of services in international classes 38 and 41.

Complainant and its predecessors have used the trademark EUROCHANNEL or EUROCHANNEL and stylized E in conjunction with the production and transmission of television programming and information via satellite, cable and the Internet commencing in 1994. Complainant’s predecessors first offered its services in association with EUROCHANNEL in Brazil and subsequently expanded to South America and the Caribbean. The production and transmission of television programming subsequently expanded to the United States of America and Spain with plans to expand to other parts of Europe in 2007.

Complainant is also the owner of the domain names <eurochannel.com> registered on December 18, 2002; <eurochannel.tv> registered on June 29, 2000. Other domain names including “eurochannel” owned by the Complainant include <eurochannel.fr>, <eurochannel.es>, <eurochannel.co.in>, <eurochannel.com.tv>, <eurochannel.in>, <eurochannel.sg>, <eurochannel.net>, <eurochannel.ru>, eurochannel.cn>, and <eurochannel.com.br>.

Respondent registered the domain name in dispute <eurochannel-tv.com> on January 5, 2007.

 

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant submits that it is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for or including EUROCHANNEL as a distinctive element as reviewed in paragraph 4 immediately above.

Complainant states that the EUROCHANNEL trademarks are used by Complainant in conjunction with the production and transmission of television programming and information by satellite, cable and the Internet.

Complainant submits that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar if not identical to Complainant’s registered trademarks for or including EUROCHANNEL, the difference being merely the addition of “tv” to the trademark EUROCHANNEL. Complainant submits that the domain name in dispute is substantially identical to Complainant’s domain name <eurochannel.tv> which has been registered since June 29, 2000. Complainant submits that Respondent’s purported business activity, transmission of television programming via the Internet competes directly with Complainant’s business.

A.2 No Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant submits that Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name in dispute nor does she have any relevant trademark or service mark rights with respect to “eurochannel”. In fact, Respondent registered the domain name only in January, 2007, and the company she works for is actually known as Intervision-TV, as shown on its webpages located at “www.intervision-tv.com”. As shown on the webpages, the same person who is the Respondent (Sarah Staar) is also the administrative contact for Intervision, which is the registrant of the domain <intervision-tv.com>. See Annex 8 to Complaint.

Complainant submits that Respondents alleged rights in a Benelux trademark registration for the trademark “Eurochannel -TV” and Community flag design have no foundation in law. The trademark is owned by an individual in the Netherlands and there is no evidence of an agreement relating to the trademark between the individual and Intervision. Complainant further submits that the Benelux trademark application was filed in the Benelux Trademarks Office on January 27, 2007, several days after the applicant for the trademark had received a copy of a cease and desist letter from the Complainant to Intervision on January 23, 2007.

Complainant submits that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant states that it is well settled in previous UDRP decisions that an offering of goods or services cannot be bona fide if a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark is used to offer goods or services in competition with the Complainant. Robert Bosch GmbH v. Asia Ventures, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0946.

A.3 Registered and Used In Bad Faith

Complainant submits that it would defy common sense that a business of the sophistication of Intervision TV was unaware of its competitor (Complainant) in the industry, and much less that it would launch a website without some minimum due diligence. In fact, entering “eurochannel” as a search term on “Google” will return Complainant’s website “www.eurochannel.com” as second website on the list of results. (see Annex 12 to Complaint).

If Respondent had difficulty reading Spanish or did not wish to “translate this page”, Respondent need only have scrolled down a few more results of the “Google” search and Respondent would have encountered. (see Annex 12 to Complaint) the following according to Wikipedia:

“Eurochannel is a cable and satellite television channel that was initially created by the Abril Group in Brazil in 1994; it was then acquired by MultiThematiques Inc. (Canal+ Group and Vivendi) in the year 2000. Four years later it was Gustavo Vainstein, former executive at Noos, who bought it out. Eurochannel is dedicated to promote the rich European culture and lifestyle in the world. It broadcasts a 100% of European programs in original audio version subtitled, 24/7. At the present, Eurochannel is being offered by more than 200 cable and satellite providers.” See Annex 13.

Complainant further submits that on December 22, 2006, 13 days before Respondent registered the domain name in dispute, the French satellite television periodical, Tйlй Satellite, published an article announcing the arrival of Eurochannel in France in the first quarter of 2007 (Edition No. 206). (See Annex 14 to Complaint) the copy of the webpage shows that the edition was made available on December 22, 2006.

Complainant submits that the domain name should be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent, as described in the Policy, paragraph 4(b) , because after the demand letter was received at Intervision TV, Respondent eliminated the street address of the company from the contact page of the website (See Annex 10 to Complaint).

Complainant further submits that Respondent is in the same industry as Complainant and admits to being in competition with Complainant. As described above, Complainant’s television channel is distributed in numerous countries and Complainant has invested substantial resources and efforts to register its trademark EUROCHANNEL in numerous countries and to protect its mark on the Internet by registering numerous domains for “eurochannel”.

Complainant states that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

B. Respondent

B. 1 Identical or Confusingly Similar

Respondent submits that Complainant’s registrations (except for the EEC) are only for the trademark EUROCHANNEL. Complainant cannot therefore claim ownership a domain name identical to or similar to the domain name in dispute <eurochannel-tv.com> based on that registration. Respondent further submits that Complainant’s registration in the United States of America clearly states that “no claim is made to the exclusive right to use ‘Eurochannel’ apart from the mark as shown”. Complainant cannot therefore argue that the United States registration of EUROCHANNEL and stylized E gives them rights to all domain names containing “Eurochannel”.

Respondent further states that it selected the use of the ‘.tv’ extension to the domain name to deliberately differentiate Eurochannel from the many other Eurochannels that have registered trademarks. Respondent also submits that Complainant has failed to provide any evidence that the domain name in dispute is confusing or misleading to its use of the trademark EUROCHANNEL with or without a stylized E according to paragraph 3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules.

Respondent states that a previous UDRP panel has found in favor of the respondent even when a domain name is identical to a trademark. Knipping Kozijnen B.V. v. R.T.P. Hanss, WIPO Case No. D2006-0622. In Scholastic Inc. v. ScholasticAdvising.com, WIPO Case No. D2001-0946, the panel found in favour of the respondent ruling that ownership of the mark “scholastic” did not confer rights on all domain names including the word “scholastic”. Similarly in Packet Clearing House, Inc. v. Howard Lee, WIPO Case No. D2005-0828, the panel concluded that the trademark rights were limited to the trademark as registered and could not be extended to include other domain names.

B.2 Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent states that on the December 7, 2006, Intervision entered into an agreement with Music Media Enterprises to launch an English language cable and satellite TV channel in Europe. A copy of the agreement with commercially sensitive information deleted is attached as Annex A to Response. Respondent further states that a search of the relevant trademark databases showed that “Eurochannel TV” was not registered, so EUROCHANNEL TV was registered as a trademark by Music Media Enterprises and the domain name <eurochannel-tv.com> was registered by Sarah Staar, a director of Intervision.

A copy of the trademark registration is attached as Annex B to Response.

Respondent states that it has a legitimate interest and clear rights to the domain name <eurochannel-tv.com> from its trademark registration.

The Respondent contends that the word “Eurochannel” is not the Complainants trademark; the Complainant’s trademark is the words in combination with other unique and distinguishing features. The Complainant’s trademark does not appear on the Eurochannel TV website. The commercial agreement between Intervision TV Limited and Music Media Enterprises pre-dates any knowledge by Respondent of Complainant.

Respondent submits that all the allegations in the Complaint under this heading are false, and specifically there is clearly no evidence that the Complainant’s trademark is being used to offer similar goods or services through Eurochannel TV. Annex D to Response shows Respondent’s current web-site with Intervision TV’s trademark prominently displayed on the website. Respondent states that Complainant has no reputation amongst Intervision TV’s customers that would result in confusion, as the Complainant has no distributor for its content within Europe.

Respondent states that the purpose of Respondent’s current web-site is to show potential customers of Eurochannel TV, what the content is that will be shown on the channel. Potential customers are owners of cable companies, IPTV companies, satellite companies and owners of broadcast platforms in Europe.

Respondent further states that prior to any knowledge of the Complainant, e-mails were sent by Music Media Enterprises to a substantial number of potential clients. Copies of these e-mails with commercially sensitive information deleted are attached as Annex E to Response.

Respondent submits that as a result of the conversations that have taken place Respondent is close to concluding an agreement with a major European broadcast platform to take Eurochannel TV, and also with several smaller cable companies. Copies of relevant e-mails with commercially sensitive information deleted are attached as Annex F to Response.

Respondent further states that. given that Eurochannel TV is selling its English language content in Europe, to argue as the Complainant does, namely that Respondent is trying to misdirect people who are contacting the Complainant for a Spanish language TV channel is clearly fallacious. People would clearly recognize the difference between a Spanish language TV station and an English language TV station.

B.3 Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Respondent submits that the commercial agreement between Intervision TV Limited and Music Media Enterprises stated to be made on December 7, 2007 predates any knowledge by Respondent of the Complainant. (Annex A to Response).

Respondent further submits that neither Intervision TV Limited or Music Media Enterprises Europe knew of the Complainant’s intent, as published only in a French language journal and just before the Christmas break, to launch Eurochannel into Europe.

Complainant’s article did not appear in the English language International edition which is in fact available in January, though its publication date is December. Respondent submits that Complainant has failed to show that either of the partners had any prior knowledge of Complainant’s intention to expand Complainant’s EUROCHANNEL programming services to Europe. Respondent states that when searching for possible competitors, Intervision TV used the search term “Eurochannel TV”, as that was the name and mark it had decided upon, and that the search did not reveal any issues of confusion.

Respondent submits that Complainants reports of telephone conversations and interpretations of e-mails are false Respondent submits that if Complainant had contacted Music Media Enterprises Europe, as Intervision TV directed Complainant to do, Complainant would have learnt of the trademark registration and also of the sales efforts already underway on behalf of Eurochannel TV. That the Complainant chose not to do so indicates its lack of concern for the legitimate commercial interests of Intervision TV Limited and Music Media Enterprises Europe.

Respondent again submits that Complainant and Respondent are not competitors in the same market offering the same product and service. To argue that a Spanish/Portuguese language channel offering a range of entertainment content is competitive with an English language channel offering programming relating to holidays, books, business news, and rural news is clearly flawed. Complainant does not have any presence in Europe, there cannot therefore be any attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain at Complainant’s expense.

The various cases presented by the Complainant primarily involve a Respondent that has been offering a similar service (e.g. mortgage) in the same geographical area. The current Respondent contends that this is not the case with Eurochannel TV and so those cases are not relevant.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights.

Complainant has established that it is registered as the owner of numerous registrations in South America, the Caribbean, the United States of America, and the European Community for the trademark EUROCHANNEL alone or in combination with a stylized E registered in relation to a broad range of entertainment services in international classes 38 and 41. The trademark EUROCHANNEL alone or with a stylized E has been used since 1994 in an expanding geographical territory by Complainant and its predecessors in title in association with the services for which it is registered before registration of the domain name in dispute by Respondent on January 5, 2007.

Complainant’s United States registration includes a disclaimer to the exclusive use of the term “Eurochannel” alone apart from the combination trademark. However, registrations of EUROCHANNEL alone are found in other countries. As found by the panel in Eurochannel, Inc. (f/k/a Multithematiques, Inc.) v. Papete.com, WIPO Case No. D2005-0318, after reviewing the current Complainant’s registered trademarks for EUROCHANNEL alone or in combination with a stylized E, “the existence of Complainant’s Latin American registrations clearly establishes that Complainant possesses rights in the EUROCHANNEL mark”.

The domain name in dispute is comprised of Complainant’s trademark followed by the abbreviation “tv” with the addition of the top level domain designation ‘.com’. Many panels have held that the addition of descriptive terms or top level domain designations to a complainant’s trademark do not avoid confusing similarity with a complainant’s trademark. See, e.g. VAT Holding AG v. vat.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0607 (<vat.com> identical to VAT trademark). Complainant is the registrant of many domain names comprised of “Eurochannel” in combination with descriptors, TLD’s or SLD’s. One of Complainant’s domain names registered since June 29, 2000 is <eurochannel.tv>.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark for or including EUROCHANNEL as the distinctive element.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

The Respondent and owner of the domain name in dispute is Sarah Staar. The website associated with the domain name in dispute contained a copyright notice. The notice stated that copyright in the website was owned by Intervision TV. Further information on the website showed that a Sarah Staar is either an employee or a principal of Intervision TV Limited.

Complainant has established that neither Sarah Staar or Intervision TV Limited are or were known as “eurochannel” in relation to the services of producing or selling media content for use in the media industry.

Commencing sometime in December 2006 and continuing through January and February of 2007, Intervision TV Limited entered into a business relationship with Music Media Enterprises Europe Ltd., a Netherlands company. Pursuant to the business relationship, Intervision was to provide media content for media outlets. The media content included programming and other prepared content for licensing to media outlets such as but not limited to cable, satellite, mobile phone and IPTV networks. Music Media Enterprises Europe Ltd. is a company involved in marketing and distributing media content to media outlets in Germany, the Netherlands and other countries on the continent.

The evidence shows that Intervision and Music Media had decided only by early January 2007 to carry on their joint enterprise in association with the domain name and trademark “Eurochannel TV”. Sarah Staar registered the domain name in dispute <eurochannel-tv.com> on January 5, 2007.

Respondent submits that Intervision TV has rights in the trademark EUROCHANNEL TV by reason of the registration of a trademark in the Benelux trademarks Office for EUROCHANNEL TV in respect of services in International Classes 35 and 38 under Registration No. 1127833. In the Supplemental Filing filed by Complainant and accepted by the Panel, Complainant established that the documentation from the Benelux Trademarks Office related to a trademark application and not to a trademark registration as alleged by Respondent.

Moreover, a review of the particulars of Benelux Trademark Application No. 1127833 discloses that the application was not filed by Intervision. The Benelux trademark application was filed by an individual in the Netherlands who appears to be an officer of Music Media Enterprises Europe Ltd.

In the Supplemental Filing, Complainant filed e-mails and a copy of a cease and desist letter informing Intervision of Complainant’s many trademark registrations for EUROCHANNEL throughout the world as well as in the European Union. The cease and desist letter also informed Intervision that the EUROCHANNEL trademark is used by Complainant in association with a television channel currently distributed in more than 25 countries and growing. The Supplemental Filing discloses that the cease and desist letter was forwarded to Music Media Enterprises Europe Ltd. by Intervision on the same day, January 23, 2007.

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights in the trademark EUROVISION TV by reason of filing the Benelux trademark application on January 27, 2007 as no exclusive rights in a trademark are obtained by filing a trademark application in the Benelux. Additionally, the application filed in the Benelux was filed by neither in the name of Intervision TV or its business associate Music Media Enterprises Europe Ltd.

In an e-mail dated January 23, 2007 from Intervision to Complainant, with a copy to an employee of Music Media Enterprises Europe Ltd., a director of Intervision, advised Complainant that Music Media Enterprises Europe Ltd. should be contacted about trademark matters as it handles the commercial side of things. The director of Intervision stated that Intervision is simply the technical team.

Respondent submits that the domain name <eurochannel-tv.com> and the trademark EUROCHANNEL TV were selected for use in association with Intervision TV media content without knowledge of the Complainant’s business or Complainant’s trademarks for or including EUROCHANNEL. Respondent did not state how Intervision TV or its business associate selected the domain name and trademark consisting of a combination of “Eurochannel” and “TV” as a domain name or trademark.

Intervision TV and Music Media Enterprises Europe Ltd. had apparently developed a business plan for selling English language media content to media outlets in Germany and the Netherlands in association with EUROVISION TV as a trademark by early in January 2007 as evidenced by an e-mail communication filed by Respondent. Respondent filed an unsigned agreement having an effective date of December 7, 2006 between Intervision and Music Media Enterprises Europe Ltd. Although parts of the agreement were redacted, the unsigned agreement made no reference to any trademarks to be used in association with the proposed business venture. Sarah Staar registered the domain name in dispute on January 5, 2007. Intervision TV had developed and published a webpage associated with the domain name in dispute in January 2007, which described the content, advertising, contacts, etc. for media content to be made available to media users. The web-page featured the words “Eurovision TV” on the foreground of the Community Flag corresponding to the trademark applied for in the Benelux Trademarks Office on January 27, 2007.

Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademark EUROCHANNEL before registration of the domain name in dispute cannot be proven by Complainant as the actual knowledge is within the Respondent’s control. The summary nature of the Policy and Rules does not permit for production of documents, discovery or viva voce evidence and cross-examination. However, panels are permitted to make inferences based upon the evidence of record. Brooke Bollea, a.k.a. Brooke Hogan v. Robert McGowan, WIPO Case No. D2004–0383.

Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out the onus shifts and Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. Croatia Airlines d. d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. D2003-0455.

Complainant has shown that Respondent’s position that it has rights in the domain name in dispute by reason of the Benelux registration for the trademark ‘Eurochannel TV’ is not tenable as there is only a trademark application, and no such registration. The existing application was not filed in the name of Intervision TV or Music Media Enterprises. Further the application was filed at a date after Intervision and Music Media Enterprises had received a cease and desist letter from Complainant. Complainant has also made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute as the use of the domain which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark is not a bona fide use of the domain name in dispute.

Complainant’s trademark for or including EUROCHANNEL has been registered and in use in association with a television program since 1994. The geographical areas in which the channels are shown has increased continually since 1994 to include Brazil, South America, the Caribbean, the United States of America and Spain.

A Community trademark was registered by Complainant on December 14, 2005. Complainant is the owner of numerous domain names incorporating “eurochannel ” including the domain names <eurochannel.tv>; <eurochannel.fr>; and <eurochannel.es>. Entering “eurochannel” in a search on “Google” will return Complainant’s website <eurochannel.com> near the top of the list of results. Other results on the same “Google” search page also show Complainant’s business and trademark. Complainant has registered the trademark EUROCHANNEL as a wordmark in many countries and EUROCHANNEL in association with a fanciful E in other countries. Respondent has not filed any evidence that Complainant’s trademark is in use by others. The database in the Benelux Trademarks Office includes the Community database. A search for the components of Intervision TV’s trademark EUROCHANNEL and TV discloses Complainant’s European Community trademark.

Respondent has been in the business of developing and licensing media content for many years in the United Kingdom. Respondent’s business associate Music Media Enterprises Europe Ltd. has been in the business of promoting the sale of and selling media content to cable, satellite, mobile phone and IPTV networks in Europe.

Based on the evidence filed, the Panel infers that on a balance of probabilities, it is likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark for or including EUROCHANNEL prior to registration of the domain name in dispute on January 5, 2007.

Both the Complainant and Respondent are in the business of developing and acquiring media content and either showing the media content to the public or licensing the media content to others to offer the media content to the public. Complainant currently offers its media content in both the Portuguese and Spanish languages in many countries. Respondent intends to offer its media content in Europe in the English language. The Panel finds that the use of the domain name in dispute, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, for use in promoting the sale of media content to cable, satellite, mobile phone and IPTV networks is not a bona fide use. Robert Bosch Gmb H v. Asia Ventures, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005–0946.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For the reasons expressed immediately above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain name in dispute in bad faith, with the intention of using the domain name in dispute to attract internet users to its website for the purpose of commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website or of the media content for sale to cable, satellite, mobile phone, IPTV or other media providers and the services associated with the transfer of such media content. As is often the case under the Policy relating to rights and legitimate interests in the domain name and bad faith registration and use of the domain name, the results turn on the same factual findings or inferences. See, e.g. Kirkbi AG v. Company Require/Katerina Konggidinata and Pool .Com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0359.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <eurochannel-tv.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

---

Ross Carson
Sole Panelist

Dated: April 10, 2007