ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Ministre des Relations internationales, de la Francophonie et du Commerce extrieur (Minister of International Relations, La Francophonie and External Trade), acting in this proceeding for and on ehalf of the !o"ernment of #u ec "$ %n&thing$com, Ltd$ Case 'o$ ()*+,-)+.+

1. The Parties Complainant is Ministre des Relations internationales, de la Francophonie et du Commerce extrieur (Minister of International Relations, La Francophonie and External Trade), acting in this proceeding for and on ehalf of the !o"ernment of #u ec, #u ec, Canada, represented internall&, Canada$ Respondent is %n&thing$com, Ltd$, !eorge To/n, !rand Ca&man, 0"erseas Territor& of the 1nited 2ingdom of !reat 3ritain and 'orthern Ireland, represented & Es4uire$com, 1nited 5tates of %merica (6157)$

2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name 84ue ec$com9 (the 6(isputed (omain 'ame7) is registered /ith Tuco/s Inc$ (the 6Registrar7)$

. Pro!ed"ra# $istor% The Complaint /as filed /ith the :I;0 %r itration and Mediation Center (the 6Center7) on (ecem er +<, )*+,$ 0n (ecem er +=, )*+,, the Center transmitted & email to the Registrar a re4uest for registrar "erification in connection /ith the (isputed (omain 'ame$ 0n (ecem er +., )*+,, the Registrar transmitted & email to the Center its "erification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and pro"iding the contact details$ The Center "erified that the Complaint satisfied the formal re4uirements of the 1niform (omain 'ame (ispute Resolution ;olic& (the 6;olic&7 or 61(R;7), the Rules for 1niform (omain 'ame (ispute Resolution ;olic& (the 6Rules7), and the :I;0 5upplemental Rules for 1niform (omain 'ame (ispute Resolution ;olic& (the 65upplemental Rules7)$ In accordance /ith the Rules, paragraphs )(a) and >(a), the Center formall& notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced ?anuar& <, )*+>$ In accordance /ith the Rules, paragraph @(a), the due date for Response ?anuar& )<, )*+>$ 0n ?anuar& )+, )*+>, Respondent re4uested a three-

page ) da& extension of the deadline to file Response$ Complainant consented to such extension$ %ccordingl&, the ne/ due date for Response /as ?anuar& )A, )*+>$ The Response /as filed /ith the Center on ?anuar& )A, )*+>$ 0n Fe ruar& >, )*+>, Complainant filed an unsolicited 5upplemental Filing$ The Center acBno/ledged receipt of the same on Fe ruar& @, )*+>$ The Center appointed %lfred MeiC oom, the Don 'eil 3ro/n #$C$ and ?$ 'elson Landr& as panelists in this matter on Fe ruar& )*, )*+>$ The ;anel finds that it /as properl& constituted$ Each mem er of the ;anel has su mitted the 5tatement of %cceptance and (eclaration of Impartialit& and Independence, as re4uired & the Center to ensure compliance /ith the Rules, paragraph =$

&. 'a!t"a# Ba!(gro"nd Complainant is the !o"ernment of #ue ec, represented & a Minister$ Complainant is the registered o/ner of the follo/ing trademarBsE +$ TrademarB application num er *A**.*+ for #1E3EC and (esign, registered in the Canadian Intellectual ;ropert& 0ffice and filed on 0cto er )A, +A=@F )$ TrademarB application num er *A**.*> for #1E3EC and (esign, registered in the Canadian Intellectual ;ropert& 0ffice and filed on Ma& ), +A.,F and ,$ TrademarB application num er *A***@= for #1E3EC and (esign, registered in the Canadian Intellectual ;ropert& 0ffice and filed on Fe ruar& )A, +A<. (collecti"el& referred to as the 6Canadian trademarBs7)$ Respondent is a compan& domiciled in !rand Ca&man in the 3ritish 0"erseas Territor& of Ca&man Islands$ Respondent claims that it ac4uired the (isputed (omain 'ame on ?ul& +*, +AA., /hen it ecame a"aila le for registration$

). Parties* Contentions A. Com+#ainant Complainant made the follo/ing contentions$ +$ The (isputed (omain 'ame is identical or confusingl& similar to the Canadian trademarBs as it is almost identical to the marBs$ )$ Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the (isputed (omain 'ame, asE (a) The Respondent has ne"er used it to offer goods or ser"ices in good faithF ( ) It is used onl& as a linB to a parBing page containing linBs to usinesses in #ue ec and other linBs unrelated to #ue ecF (c) Complainant has ne"er authoriGed Respondent to use its trademarBsF (d) Respondent does not hold a registered trademarB for #1E3ECF (e) Respondent is not commonl& Bno/n & the (isputed (omain 'ameF and (f) Respondent registered the (isputed (omain 'ame for profit & creating confusion regarding and tarnishing the image of ComplainantHs trademarBs$ Respondent registered and used the (isputed (omain 'ame in ad faith asE

page , (a) It registered and used the (isputed (omain 'ame /ith the o Cecti"e of taBing ad"antage of Internet users attempting to "isit ComplainantHs /e siteF ( ) Respondent intended to enefit from hits generated & ComplainantHs notoriet& and official marBsF (c) Respondent intended to maBe illicit use of ComplainantHs trademarBs & creating confusion for Internet users, tarnishing ComplainantHs official marBs and notoriet&, pre"enting Complainant from registering its official marBs in a domain name and creating confusion /ith ComplainantHs marBs regarding the source, sponsor, affiliation and appro"al of the products and ser"ices offered on the /e site 6///$4ue ec$com7$ B. Res+ondent Respondent made the follo/ing contentionsE +$ Complainant does not ha"e trademarB protection for #1E3EC ecause it is a descripti"e term not su Cect to trademarB protection as a stand-alone /ord marB$ )$ The (isputed (omain 'ame solel& incorporates the geographicall& descripti"e term 6#ue ec7 /hich is the common name of a Canadian pro"ince$ ,$ The !o"ernment of #ue ec has also disclaimed an& right to the /ord 6#ue ec7 in connection /ith the follo/ing 1nited 5tates trademarBsE 30'?01R #1E3EC (Registration 'o$ ),A),,@>A)F and #1E3EC 0RI!I'%L (Registration 'os$ >>.,,>. and >>.,,>=)$ >$ Respondent registered the (isputed (omain 'ame in good faith on ?ul& +*, +AA., /hen it /as a"aila le for registration$ Respondent selected the (isputed (omain solel& ecause it is a common geographic /ord and it elie"ed that an&one /as entitled to register a geographic /ord domain name liBe 6#ue ec$7 @$ The Complaint should e arred & the doctrine of laches ecause Complainant /aited +@ &ears to initiate this proceeding$ <$ The (isputed (omain 'ame is not confusingl& similar to ComplainantIs trademarBs$ =$ Respondent has rights and legitimate interests In the (isputed (omain 'ame ecause registration and use of a common geographic /ord domain name in connection /ith its descripti"e meaning is a

legitimate interest$
.$ Complainant has not demonstrated that the (isputed (omain 'ame /as registered and is eing used in ad faith$ A$ Registration of a geographic term or common /ord domain name is not ad faith$ 10. Complainants inaction for 15 years supports a finding that Respondent did not act in bad faith. ++$ There should e a finding of Re"erse (omain 'ame DiCacBing$

,. Dis!"ssion and 'indings A. Com+#ainant*s S"++#ementa# S"-mission In pre"ious 1(R; cases it has een decided that panels as an exception ma& accept unsolicited supplemental filings under paragraph +*(a) of the Rules, /hich pro"ides them /ith a road po/er to conduct the administrati"e proceeding in the manner the& consider appropriate under the ;olic& and Rules$ :hether it is appropriate to su mit a supplemental su mission /ill depend on its rele"ance to the issues in the case,

page > /hether the panel considers the content of the su mission essential to reaching a fair decision on the facts, and /hether the su mission could ha"e een made earlier and, if so, /h& it /as not (see, inter alia, NB Trademar s, !nc. ". #omain $ri"acy %T# and &badaba '.&. , :I;0 Case 'o$ ()**.-+A.>)$ In this case, ComplainantHs supplemental su mission consists of ComplaintHs 6choice of panelists J Repl& to the response7 document /ith additional exhi its, "iG$ official marBs pu lished under section A (+)(n)(Aiii) Canadian TrademarB %ct for 5KRETL (1 #1L3EC ;0LICE and (esign filed in +A.>, LE !R%'( (ICTI0''%IRE TERMI'0L0!I#1E and (esign7 filed in +AA=, 30'?01R #1L3EC filed in +AAA, 30'?01R#1E3EC$C0M filed in +AAA, 30'?01R#1E3EC$C% filed in +AAA, and t/o marBs #1L3EC 0R!I'%L and (esign filed in )*+)$ The 5upplemental 5u mission argued that Complainant actuall& holds trademarB rights for the /ord 6#ue ec7 standing alone, and has onl& disclaimed its rights to the /ord 6#ue ec7 in the 15 trademarBs cited & Respondent, ut not for the same marBs in the Canadian trademarB register$ The 5upplemental 5u mission further denies this eing a case of domain name hiCacBing$ %lthough Complainant did not properl& explain /h& it could not ha"e filed the 5upplemental 5u mission as part of the Complaint, the ;anel understands that Complainant /ishes to alert the ;anel of a different situation /ith respect to the official marBs Complainant relies on in Canada as compared to the 15$ %s the ;anel finds it necessar& to address this issue, the ;anel admits ComplainantHs 5upplemental 5u mission into the proceeding$ !i"en the outcome of the (ecision, and since the ;arties /ill not e preCudiced, and procedural efficienc& /ill e etter ser"ed, the ;anel has decided not to pro"ide Respondent /ith an opportunit& to repl& to ComplainantHs 5upplemental 5u mission in this case$ B. Ana#%sis o. the Com+#aint In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph >(a) of the ;olic& ha"e een satisfiedE (i) the (isputed (omain 'ame is identical or confusingl& similar to a trademarB or ser"ice marB in /hich Complainant has rightsF and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the (isputed (omain 'ameF and (iii) the (isputed (omain 'ame has een registered and is eing used in ad faith$ C. Identi!a# or Con."sing#% Simi#ar Complainant has adduced e"idence /hich the ;anel accepts and /hich sho/s Complainant is the registered o/ner of the trademarBs descri ed a o"e, the& eing the trademarBs that Complainant relies on for the purposes of paragraph >(a)(i) of the ;olic&$ In response, Respondent su mitted that this first element has not een satisfied ecause Complainant has made an admission that it has no trademarB rights to the /ord 6#ue ec7$ The reason /h& this is said to e so is that Complainant applied for a trademarB to e issued & the 1nited 5tates ;atent and TrademarB 0ffice (615;T07) for each of 30'?01R #1E3EC, 30'?01R #1E3EC$C0M and #1E3EC 0RI!I'%L and in the course of that application had gi"en a disclaimer acBno/ledging that it made no claim to the exclusi"e right to use 6#ue ec7 and 6#ue ec$com7 respecti"el&, apart from the marBs for /hich it /as appl&ing$ Respondent adduced e"idence relating to the application to the 15;T0 and de"oted a considera le part of its su missions to esta lishing the general impression that Complainant had disclaimed its rights to the /ord 6#ue ec7 alone$ Dad the trademarB on /hich Complainant relied een the 15 trademarBs 30'?01R #1E3EC, 30'?01R #1E3EC$C0M or #1E3EC 0RI!I'%L, RespondentHs argument /ould clearl& ha"e had some su stance$ Do/e"er, ComplainantHs case is ased not on those trademarBs, ut on the Canadian trademarBs set out earlier in this (ecision$ Those trademarBs are clearl& "alid, do not contain an& disclaimer and esta lish ComplainantHs trademarB rights$

page @ The ;anel is also satisfied that the trademarB registrations & Complainant in Canada corresponding to the 30'?01R #1E3EC and #1E3EC 0RI!I'%L trademarBs registered in the 1nited 5tates of %merica /ith a disclaimer for the /ord 6#ue ec7 as contained in ComplainantHs supplemental su mission /ere pu lished /ithout an& disclaimer for the /ord 6#ue ec7$ The ;anel has also "erified the presence of other trademarB pu lications for Complainant and has not located an& /ith a disclaimer$ %ccordingl&, the ;anel does not accept RespondentHs su mission that Complainant has no trademarB rights to the /ord 6#ue ec7$ The next 4uestion that arises is /hether the (isputed (omain 'ame is confusingl& similar to the Canadian trademarBs$ The trademarBs are in each case #1E3EC and (esign$ The 4uestion has often een asBed ho/ the comparison is to e made in the case of a trademarB that consists partl& of a design$ In the present case, the dominant part of the trademarBs is the /ord 6#ue ec7 and the 4uestion thus ecomes one of /hether Internet users /ould assume that the (isputed (omain 'ame /as in"oBing the pro"ince of or the cit& of #ue ec$ The ;anelHs "ie/ is that most Internet users /ould pro a l& assume that the (isputed (omain 'ame relates to matters pertaining to #ue ec in general rather than the more limited acti"ities of the go"ernment of the ;ro"ince of #ue ec co"ered & its trademarB$ Do/e"er, as one of the rules of practice is that in maBing the comparison onl& the text of the domain name and the trademarB ma& e considered, it is possi le that some o ser"ers, efore seeing RespondentHs /e site, ma& /onder if the (isputed (omain 'ame itself relates to the pro"incial go"ernment and the& ma& to that extent e confused$ %s it is also sometimes said that this first element is a lo/ threshold, the ;anel is prepared to find that Complainant has esta lished this element to ena le the matter to proceed to a deeper examination of the issues$ Complainant has therefore made out the first of the three elements that it must esta lish$ D. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is no/ generall& accepted that a complainant must first maBe a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that if a prima facie case is made out, the urden of production then mo"es to the respondent to sho/ rights or legitimate interests in the domain name$ 5ome guidance in undertaBing that process is gi"en in paragraph >(c) of the ;olic& /hich descri es "arious /a&s & /hich a respondent ma& sho/ that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, namel&E 6%n& of the follo/ing circumstances, in particular ut /ithout limitation, if found & the panel to e pro"ed ased on its e"aluation of all e"idence presented, shall demonstrate &our rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph >(a)(ii)E (i) efore an& notice to &ou of the dispute, &our use of, or demonstra le preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection /ith a bona fide offering of goods or ser"icesF or (ii) &ou (as an indi"idual, usiness, or other organiGation) ha"e een commonl& Bno/n & the domain name, e"en if &ou ha"e ac4uired no trademarB or ser"ice marB rightsF or (iii) &ou are maBing legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, /ithout intent for commercial gain to misleadingl& di"ert consumers or to tarnish the trademarB or ser"ice marB at issue$7 ComplainantHs case is that there is no right or legitimate interest as Complainant has ne"er authoriGed Respondent to use its official marBs, Respondent has ne"er o tained a registered trademarB itself for #1E3EC, Respondent is not Bno/n as 6#ue ec7 or & the (isputed (omain 'ame and, finall&, thatE 6the

Respondent registered the domain name ()uebec.com* +ith the intention of di"erting, for profit, ,eb users attempting to "isit the +ebsite of the -o"ernment of .uebec, by creating confusion regarding and tarnishing the image of the Complainant/s official mar s. The Respondent has made illicit and unfair use of the domain name ()uebec.com*0.

page < Respondent relies on its su mission that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name ecause it consists of a 6geographic common /ord7, namel& 6#ue ec7 /hich is oth a pro"ince and maCor cit& in Canada$ Respondent relies on se"eral 1(R; decisions to support its propositionE see 'pherion

Corporation ". Neal 'olomon, '%F Claim 'o$ ++)>@> (6a geographicall& descripti"e name is to e treated as a generic term$$ $7), Neusiedler & tiengesellschaft ". 1inaya 2ul arni , :I;0 Case 'o$ ()***-+=<A (6!eographic names cannot e monopoliGed & registering a trademarB or compan& name$7)F and Tra"el Ber eley 'prings, !nc. ". -lens Country 3state , '%F Claim 'o$ A<,>=$ There are man& other 1(R; decisions that discuss the same issue and although it is not necessar&
to cite or discuss them all, the unanimous decision of the three-mem er panel in 4unta de &ndalucia Conse5eria de Turismo, Comercio y #eporte, Turismo &ndalu6, '.&. ". &ndaluc7a.Com %imited, :I;0 Case 'o$ ()**<-*=>A contains a concise statement of the principles in"ol"ed$ The proceeding concerned the domain name 8andalucia$com9 that in"oBes the %utonomous Region of %ndalucia in 5painF complainant in that case, eing the go"ernment of %ndalucia, held st&liGed trademarBs for %'(%L1CI%$ The panel approached its tasB & o ser"ing that, 6$$$ the use of a geographic indication in a domain name is analogous to the use of a generic descripti"e term in a domain name$ Thus it finds the cases on the use of generic descripti"e terms in domain names instructi"e$7 %fter considering some of those cases, the panel concluded as follo/sE 6The ;anel finds that /here, as here, a respondent is using a geographic indication to descri e his productM usiness or to profit from the geographic sense of the /ord /ithout intending to taBe ad"antage of complainantHs rights in that /ord, then the respondent has a legitimate interest in respect of the domain name$7 The matter has also een considered in Chambre de Commerce et d!ndustrie de Rouen ". 8arcel 'ten6el, :I;0 Case 'o$ ()**+-*,>.9 Brisbane City Council ". 4oyce Russ &d"ertising $ty %imited :I;0 Case 'o$ ()**+-**<A and 2ur: und 1er ehrs"erein 't. 8orit6 ". 't8orit6.com, :I;0 Case 'o$ ()***-*<+= /here the panel saidE 60n the one hand, & not su mitting a response, Respondent has failed to in"oBe an& circumstance /hich could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph >c of the ;olic&, an& rights or legitimate interests in the (omain 'ame$ 0n the other hand, ho/e"er, it appears that Respondent pro"ides informational ser"ices a out the cit& of 5t$ MoritG and a out 5/itGerland$ Indeed, upon anal&sis of the /e sites connected to the different domain names registered & Respondent or its 6affiliated7 compan&, 5erenade Limited, it appears that Respondent has uilt a /hole net/orB of /e sites pro"iding information a out su Cects as "arious as different cities, countries, general ne/s, net cafes, etc$, /hich acti"it& the ;anel finds does 4ualif& as a bona fide acti"it&$ The %dministrati"e ;anel therefore finds that Respondent ma& ha"e a legitimate interest in the (omain 'ame$7 %ppl&ing the facts of the present case to the pro"isions of paragraph >(c) of the ;olic&, it ma& e said first of all that there is no e"idence that Respondent has a registered trademarB for #1E3EC or that it is or has een commonl& Bno/n & the (isputed (omain 'ame and it has not een alleged that Respondent is maBing a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the (isputed (omain 'ame$ Moreo"er, Respondent is not affiliated /ith Complainant and has not een authoriGed & the Complainant to use its trademarB in a domain name or an&/here else$ Those factors are often factors going to sho/ that a complainant has made out a prima facie case, and the& are present in this case$ Do/e"er, in the present case, it is the geographic indicator /hich is the determining factor$ 0n that issue, the ;anel accepts the general proposition coming from 4unta de &ndalucia Conse5eria de Turismo, Comercio y #eporte, Turismo &ndalu6, '.&. ". &ndaluc7a.Com %imited, supra although of course each case must e decided on its particular facts$ In the present case, Respondent has adopted a geographic indicator as its domain name and has sought to put it to good use in pro"iding linBs to "arious information and commercial sites offering goods and ser"ices in or related to #ue ec$ RespondentHs current /e site carried linBs to information ser"ices such as maps, directions and dri"ing instructions and also linBs to sites offering hotel and flight ooBings, other tra"el related usinesses and a

page = fe/ other ser"ices such as immigration "isas$ It is true as Complainant sa&s that some of the linBs do not relate specificall& or exclusi"el& to #ue ec, ut a fair reading of the /e site lea"es no dou t that it is a site for goods and ser"ices offered in #ue ec and in Montreal in particular$ The ;anelHs o"erall assessment of the /a& that Respondent is using the (isputed (omain 'ame is that it is using the (isputed (omain 'ame in its geographic sense, i.e. that it deals /ith goods and ser"ices a"aila le in and specificall& related to the region$ If Respondent /ere pretending to e Complainant itself, if its /e site purported to offer go"ernmental ser"ices, if it laid some claim to speaB on ehalf of the region or to e an authoritati"e "oice on go"ernmental or municipal matters, or if it sought to mislead Internet users as to the true nature of the site, the outcome ma& /ell ha"e een different$ 3ut one can examine RespondentHs /e site closel& and &et not find an& such matters$ The /e site is /hat it presents itself to e, namel& a site for people minded to find goods and ser"ices in #ue ec through commercial linBs and for usinesses in #ue ec to ad"ertise and promote their /ares$ %n examination of the record of the /e site at 6///$archi"e$org7 re"eals the same use o"er the &ears$ %ccordingl&, the ;anel finds that the use to /hich Respondent is putting the (isputed (omain 'ame is the legitimate one of using a /ord for its "alue as a /ord, analogous to the use of a generic, descripti"e or common dictionar& /ord and not as an attempt to transgress & using it as a trademarB$ In particular, the ;anel does not accept the argument of Complainant that Respondent registered the

#isputed #omain Name +ith the intention of di"erting !nternet users loo ing for the -o"ernment of .uebec, by creating confusion regarding and tarnishing the image of Complainant/s official mar s.
There is no e"idence at all to support that proposition and, gi"en the contents of the +ebsite it is unli ely

that the proposition reflects Respondents intention, although the passage of such a long period of time since Respondent registered the #isputed #omain Name ma es it difficult to discern this one +ay or the other, ma ing it more difficult for Complainant to satisfy its burden proof. !t is far more li ely, 5udging from the contents of the site, that it +as established to attract users +anting information on sub5ects such as tra"el and accommodation to, from and in .uebec and the other ser"ices referred to abo"e, being precisely the use that has been made of it.
For all of those reasons, the $anel finds that Complainant has not made out its case that Respondent

does not ha"e a right or legitimate interest in the #isputed #omain Name.
E. Registered and /sed in Bad 'aith ;aragraph >( ) of the ;olic& sets out a series of circumstances that are to e taBen as e"idence of the registration and use of a domain name in ad faith, namel&E 6(+) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has ac4uired the disputed domain name primaril& for the purpose of selling, renting, or other/ise transferring the disputed domain name registration to Complainant /ho is the o/ner of the trademarB or ser"ice marB or to a competitor of Complainant, for "alua le consideration in excess of RespondentHs documented out-of-pocBet costs directl& related to the disputed domain nameF or ()) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to pre"ent Complainant from reflecting the marB in a corresponding domain name, pro"ided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conductF or (,) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primaril& for the purpose of disrupting the usiness of a competitorF or (>) & using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionall& attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its /e site or other online location, & creating a liBelihood of confusion /ith

page . ComplainantHs marB as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its /e site or location or of a product or ser"ice on its /e site or location$7 Complainant su mits that the (isputed (omain 'ame in the present case /as registered and used in ad faith and that that is so for se"eral reasons$ The first and principal reason ad"anced is the argument used /ith respect to rights and legitimate interests and no/ rene/ed under ad faith, the argument that Respondent registered the (isputed (omain 'ame 6/ith the ultimate o Cecti"e of taBing ad"antage of :e users attempting to "isit the ComplainantHs /e site$7 That is essentiall& a su mission that Respondent formed such an o Cecti"e or intention$ 3ut Complainant also argues that the same conclusion can also e dra/n & inference from the fact that Respondent intended to enefit from hits generated & ComplainantHs notoriet& and official marBs and that Respondent intended to maBe illicit use of ComplainantHs trademarBs & creating confusion for Internet users, tarnishing ComplainantHs official marBs and notoriet&, pre"enting Complainant from registering its official marBs in a domain name and creating confusion /ith ComplainantHs marBs regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation and appro"al of the products and ser"ices offered on the /e site 6///$4ue ec$com7$ Respondent has replied to these allegations to the effect that registration of a geographic term or common /ord as a domain name is not ad faith and it adds correctl& that this is in the a sence of e"idence to the contrar&$ Respondent also su mits that Complainant has een inacti"e in the +@ &ears since Respondent registered the (isputed (omain 'ame and that such a dela& supports its "ie/ that it acted in good faith$ Turning first to paragraph ;<b= of the $olicy, the $anel finds that there is no e"idence bringing the

case +ithin sub:paragraph <i=, that relating to an intention to sell or rent the #isputed #omain Name. That is so because ac)uiring a domain name, holding it for 15 years and using it solely for +hat appears to be a legitimate purpose and apparently not attempting in 15 years to sell or rent, seems to be to the contrary and to e"ince an intention at the time of registration to eep the domain name and use it to produce income from ad"ertising rather than an intention to sell or rent it. !t must also be remembered that to rely on sub:paragraph <i=, it must be sho+n that the intention to sell or rent +as not 5ust an idea at the bac of a registrants mind, but that the registrant +as >primarily0 moti"ated by that fact and that its intention +as to sell the domain name to Complainant or a competitor. There is no e"idence that such +as the intention of Respondent or that it +as its primary intention and the fact that Respondent ept the #isputed #omain Name for 15 years +ithout selling or renting or e"en attempting to do so, militates against the conclusion that it +as e"er the intention of Respondent to sell or rent the #isputed #omain Name.
It is also difficult to conclude that there has een a reach of paragraph ;<b=<ii= as Respondent has not

pre"ented Complainant from reflecting its .?3B3C trademar s in a corresponding domain name9 there are numerous domain names a"ailable consisting solely of the +ord >.uebec0, alone and in combination +ith other +ords.
LiBe/ise, the facts of the case do not ring it easil& /ithin su -paragraph >( )(iii) of the ;olic&$ %gain, the fact that Respondent registered and used the (isputed (omain 'ame for an apparentl& legitimate purpose and retained it for +@ &ears, continuing to do the same thing /ith it during that period does not fit comforta l& /ith the notion of Respondent /anting to disrupt ComplainantHs usiness$ %gain it must e remem ered that this intention must e sho/n to e the registrantHs primar& intention$ There is no e"idence that Respondent had an& such intention or e"idence of an& facts from /hich such an inference could e dra/n$ %ccordingl&, the onl& real chance of Complainant succeeding on ad faith comes from su -paragraph >( ) (i") of the ;olic& and the general notion of ad faith /hich of course is a"aila le to it as /ell as the specific criteria in su -paragraph >( )(i")$ The ;anel has alread& indicated in the section of the (ecision dealing /ith rights and legitimate interests that it is difficult to conclude that Respondent had the intention to create confusion /ith the Canadian marBs as to RespondentHs /e site$ If this /ere its intention it has had +@ &ears to get up a /e site to suggest that it /as the /e site of the !o"ernment of #ue ec, ut it has not done so$ Its /e site maBes no suggestion that it is the !o"ernment of #ue ec, that it is modeling itself on the go"ernment, that it has an& authorit& in

page A go"ernmental affairs or that it is in an& other /a& tr&ing to induce in a "isitor the false notion that it is an&thing other than the commercial site that it plainl& is$ %gain, the ;anel must also asB /hether, if there is no direct e"idence, are there ne"ertheless other matters from /hich it ma& e inferred that this /as the intention of Respondent$ The fact that Respondent appears to ha"e Bept strictl& to promoting its o/n interests, namel& commercial linBs, suggests that there are no such matters from /hich such an inference ma& e dra/n$ The situation in this regard is summed & the remarB of the three-mem er panel in Conse5o de $romoci@n Tur7stica de 8ABico, '.&. de C.1. ". %atin &merica Telecom !nc., :I;0 Case 'o$ ()**>-*)>) in /hich the trademarB at issue /as MENIC0 and the domain name 8mexico$com9 and /here the panel o ser"edE 6In this regard, Complainant has not persuaded the ;anel that Internet users, t&ping the /ord MENIC0 into their ro/sers, expect to find the goods or ser"ices of Complainant, as distinct from goods, ser"ices or information a out the countr& Mexico$7 LiBe/ise, in the present case, there is nothing either expressl& or & inference to suggest that Internet users /ould thinB that & t&ping 84ue ec$com9 into their ro/sers, the& /ould find the go"ernmental ser"ices of the ;ro"ince of #ue ec, rather than goods, ser"ices or information a out #ue ec, /hich /as clearl& RespondentHs intention, Cudging from the a"aila le e"idence$ There are t/o other considerations in this regard to /hich the ;anel also dra/s attention$ The first is that ad faith, in general, means there has een a malicious or recBlessl& indifferent intention to do harm, /hich is not present on the facts in this case$ Indeed, there are no facts that are inconsistent /ith the intention of Respondent eing solel& to promote its o/n interests in a la/ful manner$ Moreo"er, RespondentHs /e site seems to e promoting #ue ec and enhancing the goods and ser"ices a"aila le thereF if an&thing, such conduct is more aBin to good faith than to ad faith$ In that regard the ;anel notes that the /e site under the (isputed (omain 'ame &ields ad"ertisements related to the geographic application of the term such as 6Things to do (in) #ue ec7, 6)@* Dotels in #ue ec7, 6Cheap flights7 and 6Montreal to #ue ec Cit&7 as stated & the Respondent in its Response$ There is nothing related toMor capa le of eing randed as ad faith in such ad"ertisements /hich in fact promote, in fairness or good faith, the pro"ince or Cit& of #ue ec$ 5econdl&, although the argument on laches in 1(R; proceedings can e a sterile one, the present case is a classic example of the pro lems facing complainants /ho do not pursue their remedies in a timel& manner$ The ;anel is not prepared to sa& that laches is a"aila le as a defence in all 1(R; proceedings, ut it is also not prepared to sa& that the dela& in ringing proceedings ma& ne"er e considered For these reasons, the ;anel finds that the (isputed (omain 'ame /as not registered or used in ad faith$ '. Re0erse Domain Name $i1a!(ing The ;anel finds that ComplainantHs moti"ation in filing the Complaint /as more liBel& than not to protect its trademarBs and to stop for the future /hat it sa/ as a "iolation of its rights, rather than an attempt to intimidate or harass Respondent$ To ring a claim that does not succeed, /hich has difficulties ecause of the passage of time or /here there turns out to e a lacB of conclusi"e e"idence does not amount to Re"erse (omain 'ame DiCacBing /here it essentiall& must e sho/n that the complainant has tried to harass the respondent, /hich is not so in the present case$ In an& e"ent, the ;anel has discretion on this matter and after considering all of the e"idence and the su missions the ;anel declines to maBe a finding of Re"erse (omain 'ame DiCacBing$

2. De!ision

page +*

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied$

A#.red Mei1-oom ;residing ;anelist

The $on Nei# Bro3n 4.C. ;anelist

5. Ne#son Landr% ;anelist (ateE March =, )*+>