At that time the publicly available WhoIs details for the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Names identified the registrants more info the privacy services "PrivacyProtect.
On May 29,the concerned registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing the underlying registrants behind the various privacy services as "Lianna Tall" and "Timur Ziganshin" and providing those registrants' contact information. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 10, In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5 athe due date for Response July 2, The Response was filed with the Center July 2,Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co the names of "Escave Limited" and Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co "Timur Ziganshin" and in Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co document "Escave Limited" and "Timur Ziganshin" accepted that they were the registrants of the Domain Names.
In this decision references to the "Respondent" hereinafter Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co intended as a reference to these registrants unless the contrary is apparent. It would appear from subsequent correspondence between Moniker Online Services LLC, URL Solutions Inc and the Center, that whilst see more Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Name was unlocked to allow this Domain Name solely to be renewed, it was nevertheless permitted to be transferred to URL Solutions in apparent breach of paragraph 8 of the More info. However, URL Solutions appears to have placed this Domain Name on lock pending the outcome of these proceedings.
Harris, Olga Zalomiy and Paul M. DeCicco as panelists in this matter on July 28, The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co 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.
In that filing the Respondent referred to proceedings filed on July 24, with the Russian trade mark office that sought to cancel a number of the Complainant's Russian trade mark registrations. On July 31,the Complainant filed a submission in response asking the Panel to Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co these proceedings for 30 days pursuant to Paragraph 18 a of the Rules.
Later that same day the Respondent filed a further submission opposing that suspension. It stated that it would inform the Parties of it reasons for not doing so in it decision in this matter.
However, according to the uncontested claims of the Respondent in this respectin all bricks and mortar gambling operations in Russia became illegal save in a limited number of government approved locations.
At that point the Complainant withdrew its on-the-ground operations in that country. Undisputed evidence has been provided that shows that it still has operations in the form of branded gaming clubs throughout Europe; in particular in Germany, Italy, Croatia, Romania, Belarus and Latvia. From to its revenues amounted to in Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co of USD 5. Many of these trade marks are registered in Russia. However, they also include the following marks:.
The mark has proceeded to grant in all of these states and takes the following form:. The mark proceeded to grant unchanged in Belarus, Croatia and Serbia.
In Kazakhstan it has been subject to provisional refusal. It has proceeded to grant in all other designated countries save for in respect of a modified set of goods and services. For example, the application proceeded to grant as a Community Trade Mark on September 3, in respect of goods and services in classes 16, 21, 25, 28, 35, 39, 41, 43, The mark proceeded to grant unchanged in Croatia but has been provisionally refused in Kazakhstan. It has proceeded to grant in all other designated countries in respect of a modified set of goods and services.
For example, the application proceeded to grant as a Community Trade Mark on October 1, in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 21, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and At all relevant times these websites have offered online gaming services. The websites are in the Russian language and almost all of the users of those websites come from Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co and the Ukraine. Although the websites are in Russian, Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Complainant has provided uncontested translations of text that appears on the websites operating from the Domain Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co as follows:.
As for Russia and the CIS countries, there is, perhaps, there will be no such gamblers, who would not love to play clubs volcano. The highest quality of service and the most generous slot machines on the market of gambling entertainment Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co these are our main features.
It is because of this approach to business brand, 'Volcano' was the undisputed leader, and even synonymous with 'slots'. Have you caught yourself thinking 'Where to play slot machines? Keeping pace with the times, not so long ago we went out and the open spaces of the Internet. Now the old familiar games available right in your browser!
Moreover - Casino- Vulcan. It is inconceivable that someone does not recognize good old red-and-blue logo 'Game Club Volcano. By taking advantage of the Internet, we can Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co offer our customers an even greater service. One of our innovations is that you can play as well as in free slot machines for money in our club - Volcano online casino!
We have long been a leading Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co network of gaming clubs, but after some changes in the Please click for source legislation, the club 'Volcano' had source his home and now we're working on the territory of countries such as Belarus, Latvia, Serbia, Italy, Germany, Romania, the Czech Republic, Peru and Bolivia.
We Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co up with the progress and are ready to offer Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co a long-familiar and Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co games - now Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co the Internet.
All of our old players, no doubt, already vkurse [sic] the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co offered by the game at the 'volcano'. Surely you are familiar with our brand, because not so long ago the gaming club 'Volcano' neu ohne Registrierung blue-red sign can be found in any large, and not very city. Without false modesty we can say that Vulkan had the largest network of gaming clubs in Russia and Moscow.
And now - in - we are glad to see you on our official web-site! Since the heyday of gaming network 'Volcano' Many years have passed, and now we have shifted our emphasis on Europe, Latin America, and most importantly - we are now represented on the Internet!
He was in any major city. It was the largest network gaming establishments, which united a Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co many true connoisseurs of gambling in the casino. Now free slot machines you can play online casino Volcano.
The reasons of the panel in Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co of these case for doing so are addressed Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co on in this decision. However, in that case the Respondent Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co not appear to have been involved and no response was filed.
It claims that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co marks. It maintains instead "that [the] Respondent simply acquired the [Domain Names] in hopes of intentionally attracting, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion".
Further, it contends that none of the factors identified in paragraph 4 c Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co the Policy apply Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co this cases. It, therefore, claims that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the Domain Names.
It claims that the use of the Domain Names Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co its trade mark rights. Further, it maintains that it is apparent from the websites operating from the Domain Names that the Respondent is effectively pretending to be the Complainant, when it is not. Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has sought to hide its true identity, inter aliathrough the use of privacy services and that this is again an Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co of bad faith.
It claims Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co the arguments raised by the complainant in those cases were nearly identical to those in the current proceedings. The Respondent claims that for the same reasons given by the panels in those cases, the Complaint should be rejected.
It also relies on the comments in paragraph 4. As a consequence of this it is claimed that the Complainant's Russian marks have not been used in Russia since at least and that to "the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co they claim protection for gambling services, the Russian Registrations are invalid due to abandonment and non-use and are subject to cancellation".
In this respect, the Respondent makes extensive submissions in relation to Russian gaming and intellectual property law. The Respondent also appears to claim that the international registrations are invalid because the Complainant is a Cyprus corporation and therefore did not have "a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in Russia" at the time the marks were registered.
In this respect it claims that the "Complainant has had extensive discussions with GGS regarding the [Domain Names] and the websites, including discussions about possible joint projects". In support of that assertion the Respondent relies upon an Affidavit from one Andrey Sevostianov. That affidavit claims that not only was such use with the implicit consent, but also Online-Casino-Spiel mit dem Rückzug des Geldes explicit consent, of the Complainant.
However, no further details are provided as to when and in exactly what circumstances that consent was provided and what these supposed "joint ventures" were. Moniker Online Services LLCWIPO Case No. None of these were called Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co by Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Panel. The position as to the admissibility of unsolicited supplemental submissions is addressed in paragraph 4.
As the UDRP Rules grant the panel sole discretion to request further statements and determine the admissibility of Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co which may include an unsolicited filing, such filings, when received from a party, would typically be put before the panel upon the panel's appointment - at no Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co charge - for determination as Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co admissibility, and assessment of need for further procedural steps if any.
Normally in such cases, a panel would include a ruling on admissibility of any such received filings in its decision, or in the event that an opportunity to reply is offered to Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co other party, in an administrative panel order. Panels have discretion whether to accept an unsolicited supplemental filing from either party, bearing in mind the need for procedural efficiency, and the obligation to treat each party Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co equality and ensure that each party has a fair opportunity to present its case.
The party submitting its filing would normally need to show its relevance to the case and why it Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co unable to provide that information in the complaint or response. Most panels that have allowed unsolicited filings have also tended to require some showing of 'exceptional' Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co. Panels which accept a supplemental filing from one side typically allow the other party the opportunity Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co file a reply to such supplemental filing.
In either scenario, or on its own initiative, a panel may in its discretion request further evidence, information or statements from one or other of the parties by way of administrative panel order.
This is particularly so given that the Respondent would appear to be repeating arguments that it put forward in the two previous cases involving the Respondent and an entity that claimed to be the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co licensee. However, whether or not this is correct, the Panel has formed the view that it has not needed to take into account the Complainant's supplemental submission in this case save to note that the Complainant seems to dispute the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co contention that gambling has since been unlawful in Click at this page. Given this, the Panel also has not considered the Respondent's supplemental submission in reply of July 17, The marks attacked include each of the Russian trade marks upon which the international Trade Mark registrations identified in paragraph 4.
Although no explanation is offered as to why these applications have been made only at this very late stage, the Panel is prepared to admit Naht Spielautomaten auf den Chips zu spielen salbe submission in these proceedings. It would appear that these documents are consistent with the Respondent's claims that cancellation proceedings have been commenced challenging a number of the Complainant's marks, although those proceedings appear to be http://ba21.info/spielen-online-casino-amerika.php to the marks' class 41 registrations.
If the Panel had considered the exact scope of those proceedings to be determinative of any issue in these proceedings, it would have ordered that the Respondent provide translations of the same in accordance with paragraph 11 b of the Rules and would also have provided the Complainant with an opportunity to respond substantively to the same.
For the reasons that are set Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co in greater detail later on in this decision, the Panel has not considered it necessary to do this. Namely, the Complainant must prove Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co. However, before doing so, it is convenient to explain why the Panel did not accede to Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Complainant's request that these proceedings be stayed and to Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co to the Respondent's contention that this Complaint Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co be dismissed because the facts Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co essentially the same as those, and for the reasons given, in WIPO Case No.
D and WIPO Case Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co. This, of course, does Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co mean that the mere fact that one or another party has succeeded in one case means that a panel should unquestionably come to the same conclusion in a similar case.
Instead one would usually expect the panel deciding the latter case to engage with the reasoning in the earlier case and if it disagrees with the earlier Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co, to explain Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co this is so.
That is the way in which discussion under the Policy progresses and, hopefully, consensus Spielautomaten echtes zu spielen certain issues is achieved. Some may be unremarkable and others may be historical and not reflect mainstream views on the operation of the policy.
The WIPO Overview 2. It contends that this is not just a case where the facts are similar to those in the earlier decisions relied upon. It claims that, save for the identity of the Domain Names involved, this case is factually identical to the two earlier cases decided in its favour and which involved connected, if not the same, parties. The Panel accepts that in such circumstances, if the Panel is to depart from the reasoning in these earlier cases, it should at least explain why this is so.
D the panels did not reach a positive conclusion either that the Respondent had a right or click here interest under the Policy Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co that these were registrations in good faith.
Instead, in WIPO Case No. D the majority of the panel concluded that "the Complainant has not carried its Ornnd unser Spielcasino Land and of proving that Respondent registered and used Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Domain Names in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy". The only substantive reasoning that is provided in this respect is as follows:.
In this case, there are potential issues Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co the Complainant's standing as purported Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co to bring this proceeding, the validity of the underlying trademark rights upon which the Complaint is based, possible trademark abandonment issues, the possible acquiescence of the purported licensors Bartlett and Ritzio in the Respondent's conduct, possible issues of the Complainant's unclean hands, and so forth. The Policy does not contemplate this Panel Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co as a tribunal of general jurisdiction over any and all disputes Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co are somehow related to domain names.
The issues raised by Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co parties here exceed the relatively narrow confines of the Policy, which is designed chiefly to address clear cases of cybersquatting. NA Global LinkWIPO Case No. D was slightly more detailed. In particular, it stated as follows:. For that very reason among othersComplainant's case fails. The facts of this case do not establish a clear-cut case of cybersquatting, and much of the substance of the dispute between the parties turns on issues of trademark ownership, validity, and licensing.
If Complainant's predecessors in interest never had valid trademark rights in the marks, or if they have since become abandoned, Respondent would have every right to make such Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co. These are complex issues best addressed through the court system rather than under the Policy.
Considerable factual and legal disputes appear to remain regarding the validity of the trademarks owned by Ritzio and Bartlett, as well as about the precise scope of the rights conveyed to Complainant, and click at this page such scope includes Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co power to act under the Policy to challenge the registration or use by Respondent of domain names to which Complainant itself had no rights whatsoever at Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co time Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co the domain name registrations.
It then proceeded to cite and adopt the reasoning of the Panel in WIPO Case No. Ultimately, what matters is visit web page the Complainant can show whether the requirements of paragraph 4 a of the Policy are fulfilled. Similarly the words "clear cut" do not appear in the Policy. As has already been stated the test is one of on the balance of probabilities or to use US terminology "the preponderance of the evidence" ; See WIPO Overview 2.
In such cases, the panel may conclude that the complainant has not Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co out its case or simply Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co the case without substantive comment regarding the Policy factors. Further, particular care may need to be taken where one of these issues is already before some court or other tribunal, which is better able to determine that issue. In such circumstances, a panel may consider it more appropriate to leave that issue to be determined in another forum.
However, the mere fact that the parties Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co be involved in a broader and more complex dispute and even parallel proceedings does not necessarily mean that Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co under the Policy cannot continue.
It will depend upon exactly what is in dispute, what any other court or tribunal in any parallel proceedings Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co determining and whether either actually has any bearing on Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co issues the panel has to consider in proceedings under the Policy. Jaffar Sharif WIPO Case No.
However, it does not follow simply from the fact of the existence of parallel proceedings that a Panel should refuse to consider the substance of the Complaint. Instead the Panel believes that the correct approach is to examine each of the requisite elements of the Policy in turn. Only at this stage does the question raise its head whether the Panel should decline to consider that issue further. As the Panel will describe, having conducted this exercise it has Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co that this case is not as complex as it first seems and that it is able to come to a determination as to whether each of the elements of the Policy has been shown.
The Complainant claims that the application by GGS to invalidate certain Russian marks is intended to delay Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co present proceedings under the Policy but states that a decision in those Russian proceedings would "purify the picture for the Panel regarding 'questionable' issues raised by [the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co. It, therefore, seeks a stay under Paragraph 18 a of Rules.
It denies that it wants to delay the present proceedings Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co has "no interests other than to have [these UDRP proceedings] quickly and efficiently resolved". It also contends that the Russian proceedings "are not directly related to the [D]omain 8774ames at issue in this proceeding" and that therefore paragraph 18 a of the Rules does not apply.
No decision has been cited by either party in this respect and the Panel has been unable Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co find any case which directly addresses this issue. The reason is that even if it does, the issue of whether or not to stay the proceedings is a matter of discretion for the Panel. In this case, the Panel has formed the view that it is possible to come to a determination in these proceedings, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Russian proceedings.
In these circumstances, there is no good reason for exercising its discretion so as to order a Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co and it declines to do so. The addition of the number "2", in the case of one of the Domain Names, does not prevent such a reading.
Given this, the Domain Names are each "confusingly similar" as that term is understood under the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino cowith a trade mark in which the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co has rights. Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Russian registration now appears at least in part to be subject to challenge. However, the Respondent's attempt to cast doubt on the validity of the non-Russian marks because they "may still be" dependent on the original Russian registration is wholly unconvincing.
The relevant international registration is over 5 years old and therefore under Article 6 of the Madrid Protocol these registrations are no longer dependent upon the original Russian marks. Therefore, even if the current invalidity proceedings are successful, the Complainant will still have registered trade marks for the term "Vulcan" elsewhere.
The Respondent does not contend that these other marks are invalid Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co any other reason. As is recorded at paragraph 1. However, such Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co may bear on a Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co determination whether Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co respondent has Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co and used the domain name in bad faith under the third element of the UDRP.
D one of Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co issues that concerned the panels was the fact that the complainant in those cases a putative licensee of the Complainant here was not the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co of the marks Online-Casino Casino-Glücksspiel upon. Instead, it claimed to be a licensee of the relevant marks and the scope and validity of that licence appeared to be contested.
This is not an Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co in the present case as the Complainant is the registered owner of the relevant registered marks. The Respondent therefore contends that it can lawfully use these Domain Names in Russia and that consequentially the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the same. In any event, Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co is prepared to assume without deciding in the Respondent's favour that these marks are indeed invalid and unenforceable in Russia by reason of their non-use.
However, it does not necessarily and inevitably follow from this Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. However, the Panel does not think this is right. It is not uncommon under the Policy for a complainant to own registered trade mark rights in a term in a large number of countries and for that term also to be known in other countries where a mark has not yet been obtained.
Should someone register and use a domain name that incorporates that term in a country Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co trade mark rights do not yet exist with a view to taking unfair Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co of that reputation for example to sell a competing productit is unlikely that under the Policy the registrant will have a relevant right or Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co interest.
This is so, even if the complainant cannot demonstrate that the registrant's use of the domain name is unlawful in a particular jurisdiction. It is one where those marks have been obtained but are claimed to be invalid.
But the point is that the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co of a right or legitimate interest for the purposes of the Policy and whether the use of a domain name is unlawful as a matter of local law, Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co not necessarily the same thing. This states as follows:. Rooted in generally-recognized principles of trademark law, and designed to operate in the context of the world Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co web, the decision framework of the UDRP generally does not require resort to concepts or jurisprudence specific to national law other than with respect to the question of whether trademark rights exist.
For example, WIPO panels have recognized that bad faith under the UDRP may be assessed by reference to the consistent body of prior UDRP decisions.
Non-exclusive examples of that "something else" are to be found in Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co 4 c of the Policy. This states that any one of the following will demonstrate rights or legitimate interests:. So far as paragraph 4 c ii is concerned, the Respondent does not contend Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co it is commonly known by any of the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Names or the term "Vulcan" nor is there any evidence in the record that supports such a position.
Indeed, as the Panel goes on to Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co in greater detail Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co the context of the discussion of bad faith later on in this decision, it seems to be undisputed that the way in which the Respondent or those to whom it has handed control of the Domain Names has conducted business is to represent to the Russian speaking public that the person responsible for the websites operating from the Domain Names either is the Complainant or is in some manner the legitimate successor in business to the Complainant, when in http://ba21.info/wie-viel-zeit-mit-888-casinoa-geld-auf-dem-spiel-angezeigt.php it is not.
One cannot claim to be commonly known by a name in circumstances where one is using that name to impersonate someone else. Accordingly, it is highly questionable whether the Respondent's use was before notice of the relevant dispute. Further and in any event, the Panel is of the view that the use of a name or trade mark so as to impersonate another does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co the Policy.
The Panel is not in a position to conclude as to whether this is right or wrong. This is precisely the sort of issue which is ill suited to determination under the Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co. Nevertheless, it is worth recording that this is an argument which if correct, undermines rather than supports the Respondent's case.
As has already Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co explained, even if the Panel would be prepared to accept for the purposes of these proceedings that the Complainant's marks are invalid based on the illegality of gambling in Russia, given that the Respondent's activities also involve gambling and are primarily directed to persons in Russia, it follows that the Respondent's own activities are also illegal.
The Roulette Online-Leistungs-Verhältnis cannot simultaneously have its cake and eat it. For example, according to the undisputed translations provided in the Complainant, the following text appears on the website that is or was displayed from four of the Domain Names:. As such this text provides clear evidence as to both the reputation of the Complainant's marks in in Russia and the Respondent's own knowledge of the Complainant's marks at that time.
Further, the sentence that follows this and the reference to this being an "official website" can only be sensibly understood as amounting to a claim that the operator of the website is either the business that used Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co run the Complainant's "network of gaming clubs" or somehow connected or authorised by the entity that did. Were this true, that would most likely provide an answer to the Complainant's claims in this case.
However, there is no real evidence before the Panel to this effect. Sevostianov claims this to be Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co case in more info affidavit, this is little more than a bare assertion. No further explanation, elaboration or evidence as to exactly what form such consent took is provided. There is a reference to joint venture discussions, but it is Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co alleged that the Respondent's activities have been pursuant to such a joint venture and the mere Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co that one enters into joint venture discussions with someone does not mean that one is implicitly, let alone explicitly, consenting to their activities to that date.
The Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co or at least persons on behalf of whom the Respondent has registered the Domain Names has registered and is using the Domain Names in order to pass themselves off as the Complainant or in some way authorised by the Complainant when it is not, Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co order to thereby draw Internet users to gambling websites for commercial gain.
Registration and use of a domain name for such a purpose is a classic example of registration and use in bad faith. So far as use is concerned it is activity that falls within the scope of paragraph 4 b iv of the Policy.
However, in the opinion of the Panel even if it does not offend against Russian law, that does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use in this case. IP Services IP Services Protecting IP PCT - The International Patent System Madrid - The International Trademark System Hague - The International Design System Lisbon - The International System of Appellations of Origin Budapest - The International Microorganism Deposit System Article 6ter.
Resolving Disputes Alternative Dispute Resolution Domain Name Disputes. Global Cooperation IP Infrastructure Building Respect for IP Multi-stakeholder Read more Cooperation with: Legal Resources IP Laws and Treaties WIPO Lex WIPO Administered Treaties Technical Resources International Classifications Standards WIPO Handbook Terminology Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Pearl.
Information Resources Documents Statistics Publications Country Profiles Case Studies Library. Intellectual Property Copyright Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications. Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Awards Outreach Campaigns WIPO Magazine Women and IP. About WIPO What is WIPO? Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices. Connecting with WIPO Chemin des Colombettes 34 CH Geneva, Switzerland Visit Us Contact Us Facebook Twitter Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Flickr RSS Newsletters.
The Domain Names and Registrars 2. However, they also include the following marks: The mark has proceeded to grant in all of these states and takes the following form: Although the websites are in Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co, the Complainant has provided uncontested translations of text that appears on the websites operating from the Domain Names as follows: The Parties' Supplemental Submissions 5.
Discussion and Findings 6. Namely, the Complainant must prove that: Previous decisions and the Complainant's Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co for a Stay 6. The only substantive reasoning that is provided in this respect is as follows: In particular, it stated as follows: Identical or Confusingly Similar 6. Rights or Legitimate Interests 6.
This states as follows: This states that any one of the following will demonstrate rights or legitimate interests: Registered and Used Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Bad Faith 6. For example, according to the undisputed translations provided in the Complainant, the following text appears on the website that is or was displayed from four of the Domain Names: Harris Presiding Panelist Olga Zalomiy Panelist Paul M.
Explore these ideas and more! Slot Html Stay Gold Forward. Poker Portal To Win Forward. Jo O'meara Local Attractions Iowa Vacation Ideas Forward. Gambling Games Online Gambling Casino Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co Online Casino Mobile Casino Top Site Online Poker Play Online On Online Forward. Play Casino Casino Games The Casino Online Gambling Online Casino Mobile Casino Online Mobile Slot Machine Online Games Forward.
Play Casino Casino Games Mobile Casino continue reading Casino Online Gambling Play Online To Play Sports Betting Indonesia Forward.
Gambling Games Casino Games Art Supplies Gaming Forward. Win Casino Casino Games College Courses Community College World 1 Play Online Student-centered Resources Poker Indonesia Online-Casino-Vulcan-Casino co. Movie Couples Hot Couples Bond Girls James D'arcy Actors Link O'connell Daniel Craig James Bond Eva Green Casino Royale Google Search Forward.
- Kino Casino Grundstück Verkauf von Vorhängen für 100 Rubel
Play Vulcan Slot Machine for free. Try the online casino game totally free, No download, No Registration and No Deposit needed.
- Slots für Geld am Telefon
Vulcan casino online - gamble at the best online casinos everywhere with ba21.info, Vulcan casino online - choose your preferred for training play (free.
- Jackpot Stadt Auszahlung von Geld auf dem Spiel steht Sparkasse
vulcan-casino ba21.info не является казино, не проводит и не организовывает азартные игры на деньги и.
- Online-Casino um 10 Kopeken
Казино Вулкан официальный сайт онлайн развлечений. Играйте в Вулкан казино на деньги, или.
- Online-Casino-Spielautomaten für Geld
Reviews the vulcan casino besplatno. apps facebook lucky gem casino, aliante casino gym, are penny slot machines worth it, slots games. Atlantic city casino bus trips.