Base chatsex dating ladyboys philippines blog
The Service Agreement in effect between Respondent and Network Solutions Inc. Complainant Complainant first asserted that it had registered the trademark ".sex" with the USPTO.subjects Respondent to Network Solutions’ dispute settlement policy, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, as adopted by ICANN on August 26, 1999, and with implementing documents approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999. Complainant subsequently acknowledged that the USPTO had initially refused registration, but asserts that it intends to respond to the "non-final" action.76223416, dated March 12, 2001, in International Class 38, covering "domain name registry".By letter of July 9, 2001, the USPTO notified Complainant of its initial refusal to register the mark.Each Panel member subsequently received a hard copy of the file in this matter by courier from WIPO. Factual Background Complainant has filed an application for registration of the stylized word service mark ".The Panel has not received any requests from Complainant or Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the parties. SEX" at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), serial no.WIPO indicated, however, that the panel appointed to decide the proceeding would make the ultimate determination regarding whether the Response would be admitted.(f) On August 18, 2001, Respondent’s Response was received via e-mail by WIPO. Jeffrey Samuels as the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") in this matter.Respondent also transmitted its Response to Complainant. Each panelist had previously transmitted to WIPO an executed Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence ("Statement and Declaration").
According to an Open SRS WHOIS database printout submitted by Complainant, the record of registration for the disputed domain name was created on May 10, 2001, and was last updated on May 21, 2001 (Complaint, Annex 2).The examining attorney stated, merely indicates an internet address, and is incapable of functioning as a source indicator." The examiner also indicated that identification of the service as "domain name registry" was too indefinite, and that a common commercial name or more complete description should be used.Also, the specified services would be more properly classified in International Class 42.GOD), and that Respondent claims on its website to be the exclusive registry for ".sex" domain names when it has no such exclusive right.Complainant requests the Panel to transfer the disputed domain name to it. Respondent Respondent claimed, in response to Complainant’s initial assertion of USPTO registration of the service mark ".
(with the Registrar’s Response received by WIPO on July 16, 2001).(b) On July 19, 2001, WIPO transmitted notification of the Complaint and commencement of the proceeding to Respondent via e-mail and courier mail.