You are on page 1of 10




Patricks Universal Export Pty Ltd. v. David Greenblatt
Case No. D2016-0653
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Patricks Universal Export Pty Ltd. of Bondi Beach, New South Wales, Australia,
represented by Jason R. Buratti, United States of America.
The Respondent is David Greenblatt of Lawrence, New York, United States of America, represented by John
Berryhill, Ph.d. Esq., United States of America (USA).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <> (the Domain Name) is registered with, LLC
(the Registrar).

3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) on April 5, 2016.
On April 5, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the Domain Name. On the same date the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its
verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy or UDRP), 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 11, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was May 1, 2016. This due date was extended through May 5, 2016 on the
Respondents request pursuant to Rules, paragraph 5(b). The Response was filed with the Center on
May 3, 2016. On May 25, 2016, the Complainant submitted a Supplemental Filing and an Amended
Supplemental Filing. On June 13, 2016, the Panel issued a Panel Order disallowing these filings in
accordance with settled Policy precedent. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Second Edition (WIPO Overview 2.0), paragraph 4.2.
The Center appointed Karen Fong, Leon Trakman and Richard Lyon as panelists in this matter on
June 1, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the

page 2
Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to
ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background
4.1 The Complainant is an Australian company which was incorporated on August 19, 2010 under the
name Blacks by Patricks Pty Ltd in Australia. It changed its name to Patricks Universal Exports Pty Ltd on
December 21, 2012. The Complainant trades under the name Patricks. The Complainant produces and
distributes premium quality hair care products under the brand name PATRICKS. It manufactures the
products in the USA and sells its products in Australia, the USA, Europe and South East Asia. The
Complainant has a trade mark registration for PATRICKS in the USA under TM registration number
85846760 filed on February 11, 2013 claiming the date of first use in commerce in the USA as October 2014.
The Complainant owns and uses the domain name <>. The domain name was apparently
registered in 2012 (but see the Complainants contention in paragraph 5.2(b) below).
4.2 The Respondent is a technology industry professional. He is currently a principal in a technology start
up consulting firm, having previously held executive positions in a number of tech companies. The
Respondent was a frequent computer industry commentator and has written a variety of articles and books
on the subject. He registered the Domain Name on March 12, 1997. The Domain Name resolves to a page
showing various links, the majority of which link to things like genealogy research, family history online,
adoption records and the like (the Website).
4.3 The Complainant wished to obtain the Domain Name for its global business and contacted the
Respondent to see if he would sell the Domain Name. The Respondent gave a price which the Complainant
was not prepared to pay.

5. Parties Contentions
A. Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
have been met and the Domain Name should be transferred.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.2 The Domain Name is identical to the Complainants PATRICKS trade mark in which it has registered
and common law rights. It has a trade mark registration for PATRICKS in the USA filed on February 11, 2013
and registered on January 13, 2015 in class 3 for hair care and shaving products. Its common law rights in
PATRICKS have been acquired from its long and extensive use of the PATRICKS name as a trade mark and
trading name as follows:
(a) PATRICKS has been used as a trade mark in commerce in Australia since 2005, the USA since 2011 and
Europe since about 2013. Complainant also sells its products in many other countries. The date of first use
in the USA is earlier than that stated on the certificate of registration of the US trade mark because at the
time of the filing of the trade mark the Complainant had not properly understood what qualified as use in
(b) The domain name <> has been used for its global business since 2010.
(c)The shops at which PATRICKS products may be purchased include Neiman Marcus, Sephora and Joyce
Beauty (HK) whilst online sales are made through high end online retailers like Mr. Porter and Hypebeast.
(d) The Complainants products have won numerous awards around the world.

page 3
Rights or Legitimate Interests

There is no evidence that the Respondent has:

(a) used the Domain Name in a legitimate way during the course of the registration;
(b) made any demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name;
(c) used it in a manner consistent with the Domain Name;
(d) made or intends to make a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Respondent has never been known by the Domain Name.


He has not made legitimate noncommercial use or fair use of the Domain Name.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

5.6 The Respondent is a cyberquatter and is cybersquatting on at least 380 domain names including the
Domain Name. These domain names are parked or have been offered for sale.
5.7 The Respondents registration and re-registration of the Domain Name for the purpose of selling,
renting or otherwise transferring the Domain Name specifically targeting the Complainant for consideration
far in excess of the Respondents out-of-pocket costs directly relating to the Domain Name amounts to bad
5.8 The Domain Name has been parked since 2014 and may now be secretly for sale. It is secret in that
one can only see this when clicking on the privacy policy at the bottom of the Website.
5.9 The original registration was in bad faith as the historical captures of the Website shows that the
Respondent registered the Domain Name and all the other domain names to sell for commercial use and he
now secretly tries to sell them.
5.10 There was a 2015 bad faith registration after the Complainant began using the PATRICKS trade mark
in the USA. This also amounted to bad faith as it was after a decade of the Complainants use of the
PATRICKS trade name in Australia, establishing its common law rights there. It was also more than a year
after the Complainant began using common law trade mark rights in Europe.
5.11 The Respondents posting on the Website of a photograph of a smiling girl with blonde shoulder length
hair with a side parting fringe (the Photograph) between 2012 and 2014 is evidence of bad faith as it bears
a striking resemblance to the Complainants CEO Aimee Kidd and this was the time when PATRICKS was
becoming a global name. The use of the Photograph on the Website which was offering the Domain Name
for commercial sale was to draw the Complainants attention to the Domain Name for the purpose of
extracting lots of money for its sale. Further the use of the Photograph probably infringes a third partys
copyright which also supports a finding of bad faith.
5.12 In March 2016, the Complainant tried to contact the Respondent on the telephone number found on
the WhoIs of the Domain Name at least 10 times a day at different times for over a week and no one
answered the telephone. This is evidence that the Respondent was hiding some or all of his bad faith acts in
this manner.
5.13 The Complainant managed to track him down to a phone number through public records on the
Internet. The Respondents response to the Complainants request for the Domain Name was that he
wanted USD 150,000 and equity in the Complainant for the Domain Name. This was bad faith as the
Respondent did not claim any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, the amount claimed was
more than one thousand times the costs of the Respondents out-of-pocket costs to register and re-register
the Domain Name and he was attempting to steal an ownership interest in the Complainant.

page 4
5.14 As there has been no evidence of good faith use of the Domain Name at any time, it indicates that the
Respondents primary intent was to sell it in bad faith.
5.15 The inactive use combined with his active use of exhorting money and equity from the Complainant
amounts to bad faith.
5.16 The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct to register hundreds of domain names for the
purpose of preventing the owners of trade marks and trade names from reflecting their trade mark in a
corresponding domain name. These trade marks include 9to5, agentbooking, findcheapair,
easy123dining, mqzm and Vqdv.
5.17 The use of a phone number through which the Respondent does not appear to be able to be found
combined with his failure to use three domain names constitute a pattern of bad faith registration.
B. Respondent
5.18 The Respondent denies that the Domain Name should be transferred to the Complainant for the
following reasons:
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.19 The Complainant has failed to clearly allege or offer evidence as to when it began using the
PATRICKS trade mark on goods or services. It alleges that the PATRICKS business dates back over a
decade but the Complainant was incorporated only in 2010 under the name Black by Patricks Ltd and
changed its name to Patricks Universal Exports Pty Ltd in 2012.
5.20 The US trade mark registration for hair care products was issued in 2015 based on an intent to use
application filed in 2013 for which use was claimed to be established in 2014.
5.21 There is no attempt to provide any evidence of use of the PATRICKS trade mark to demonstrate its
existence when the Domain Name was registered in 1997.
5.22 The Complainant has failed to establish seniority to the Respondents 1997 original registration of the
Domain Name, nor show that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in association with hair care
products to which the Complainants claim of rights in the mark are limited.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
5.23 The Respondents rights of seniority and priority are undisputed as the Complainant has not provided
any evidence to the contrary.
5.24 The right of seniority has been held to be sufficient and determinative for a finding in a respondents
favour on the second element.
5.25 The Respondents intention when he registered the Domain Name and many of the other domain
names in his portfolio was to invest in the potential business opportunities of provision of vanity email and
web addresses in the late 1990s. He therefore registered commonly used first names and surnames
including the Domain Name. The Respondent saw opportunities in relation to plural or possessive common
names like the Domain Name. The domain names in his portfolio include <>, <>,
<>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <> and
<> to name a few.
5.26 The business plan was not successful as anticipated and the names reverted to parking sites which
display content related to the significance of the names as common personal names of interest.

page 5
5.27 The Website has links intended to capitalize on the significance of Patricks to someone who may
have typed out his name out of pure curiosity and then wishes to find more information about that family
name. The Domain Name is used for advertising subjects relating to the significance of the name Patricks
as a family and personal name.
5.28 The Complainants founder is one of many people named Patrick and one of many busineses which
use the name Patricks. An Internet search for the term Patricks reveals 96.9 million results, amongst
which the Complainant is not prominent.
5.29 Prior to the dispute, the Respondent has been monetizing the Domain Name based on the
significance of the name Patricks itself without a direct or indirect reference to the Complainant.
5.30 The Respondent has never used the Domain Name in relation to hair care products.
5.31 The Respondent is entitled to use the name Patricks and the Domain Name for any lawful noninfringing purpose.
5.32 The Respondents use of the Patricks name does not infringe any right of the Complainant.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith/ Reverse Domain Hijacking
5.33 The bad faith criterion is an element of specific intent directed toward the Complainant, and arising from
rights known by Respondent to belong to the Complainant at the time the Domain Name was registered. Two
questions have to be addressed Why did the Respondent register the domain name? and Did this motivation
arise from a willful intent to exploit rights known to belong to another?
5.34 The Complainant has made no claim of changed use of the Domain Name to target hair styling products
or services at any time in the Domain Names history.
5.35 The Domain Name was registered concurrently in 1997 with such names as <> and
<> for the offer to lease or sell these names, which is considered acceptable practice in relation to
vanity names.
5.36 Intentional bad faith registration is not chronologically possible here, as the Complainant did not exist
in 1997, and only recently changed its name and branding in 2012.
5.37 The mere fact that the Respondent has long held a domain name that the Complainant more recently
wants, is not evidence of bad faith on the part of Respondent.
5.38 In view of the fact that Patricks is not uniquely or famously associated with the Complainant, but is an
extremely common personal name and surname, it has clear and substantial value on the secondary market
as a common name per se.
5.39 The Complainants claim that the Respondents use of the Photograph is in bad faith is without merit
as the Photograph is in fact a stock photo of a model Hannah Steller which has been used by hundreds of
thousands of domain parking companies since 2005. The Photograph has been famous in the domain
name industry for over a decade as a stock photo image that was chosen by eNom to use on thousand of
parked domains. She is an industry icon known as backpack girl or eNom girl. Neither the Photograph
nor the model has anything to do with the Complainants CEO.
5.40 The third party trade marks which the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has targeted are
9to5, agentbooking, findcheapair, easy123dining and several four letter domain names. All these are in fact
common words and phrases and are therefore not exclusive to anyone and are already used by many parties.
No evidence has been submitted that these are trade marks belonging to third parties.

page 6
5.41 The Complainants allegation that the Respondents proposed sale price in response of its solicitation to
sell the Domain Name amounts to evidence under UDRP paragraph 4(b)(i) of having registered the Domain
Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the
complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor... is without merit as it is not
possible for the Respondent to have registered the Domain Name in 1997 primarily for the purpose of selling it to
the owner or competitor of a then non-existent trademark. Even if the founder named Patrick was cutting hair
in Australia in the late 1990s that would not be a circumstance of which Respondent would have conceivably
known in 1997 especially since Complainant has provided no evidence that it was at all notable in this regard
until very recently in the life of this Domain Name.
5.42 Submitting a quoted price that Complainant did not like does not amount to bad faith.
5.43 Complainant registered the domain name <> in 2012 when it appeared to have
begun significant activity in relation to the PATRICKS trade mark. It would have been aware at the time
that the Domain Name was owned by Respondent for many years. That it now finds the
extension unsatisfactory or prefers <> in relation to its recently-expanding activities and
therefore desires the Domain Name does not amount to bad faith on the part of the Respondent.
5.44 The UDRP was meant to address the intentional bad faith registration of domain names for the
purpose of predatory behavior in relation to known trade or service marks. It was not meant as some sort
of eminent domain in which junior claimants can dispossess senior registrants and users of common
and commercially desirable common names, as in this case.
5.45 The Complainant in filing this Complaint has employed what is commonly referred to as Plan B
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking using the UDRP as a backup plan after frustrated attempts to purchase a
senior and non-infringing domain name.
5.46 The Respondent agrees that there is bad faith in this proceeding but disagrees with the Complainant
as to the party engaging in it.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Procedural Issue: Supplemental Filings
6.1 Following the filing of the Response on May 3, 2016, the Complainant submitted an unsolicited
Supplemental Filing and Amended Supplemental Filing on May 25, 2016. The Panel has disallowed these
filings in accordance with settled precedent. The purpose of the UDRP is to provide for a quick and
inexpensive way to resolve domain name disputes. Each party has one opportunity to put forward its entire
case. The Complainant being the initiator of the proceedings has an obligation to anticipate the possible
arguments that the Respondent may put forward as there is no other opportunity to file additional evidence.
It is only in exceptional circumstances that a UDRP panel will allow additional evidence to be filed. There is
nothing exceptional which justifies the unsolicited filings of the Complainant. Further no reasons have been
given as to why it was unable to provide that information in the Complaint. Hence it is not an appropriate
case for any more additional evidence to be considered.
B. General
6.2 According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain
Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

page 7
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The threshold test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trade mark and the
domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. The Panel is satisfied that the
Complainant has rights to the PATRICKS trade mark by virtue of its US trade mark registration filed in 2013.
6.4 The Panel makes no finding as to any common law rights that the Complainant may have as
insufficient evidence has been filed to establish these rights. Paragraph 1.7 of WIPO Overview 2.0 makes it
clear that a conclusory allegation of common law or unregistered rights (even if undisputed) would not
normally suffice; specific assertions of relevant use of the claimed mark supported by evidence as
appropriate would be required. The Complainant has failed to submit evidence, such as length and amount
of sales under the trade mark or the nature and extent of advertising, to establish that the common personal
name Patricks has become a distinctive identifier associated with the Complainant or its goods or services.
6.5 The Domain Name comprises the PATRICKS trade mark in its entirety. For the purposes of assessing
identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it is permissible for the Panel to ignore
the generic Top Level Domain suffix. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trade mark in
which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
6.6 The Respondent registered the Domain Name to offer those who were interested an email address or
URL that incorporates the term Patricks primarily because it is a family and personal name. When this
business strategy did not work out, the Respondent had, prior to the Complaint being filed, also used the
Domain Name to generate pay-per-click revenue through links of subjects relating to the Domain Name as a
family and personal name.
6.7 The provision of personalised email, blogging and webhosting services in connection with a domain
name would provide a respondent with a legitimate interest in that domain name if this is its sole usage (see
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v. Co., WIPO Case No. D2008-1322; Aubert International SAS
and Aubert France SA v. Co, WIPO Case No. D2009-0115 and Lorenzo International Limited v. Co., WIPO Case No. D2010-2254).
6.8 As for the Respondents present use which is to post parking and landing pages or PPC links, one
needs to consider whether such use is permissible or whether it amounts to bad faith. Where a domain
name consists of common words and the links relate to the generic meaning of the domain name at issue,
this may be permissible and also give rise to rights and legitimate interests on the part of the respondent
(see paragraph 2.6 of WIPO Overview 2.0). If the PPC links result in a connection to goods or services
competitive with those of the rights holder or is based on trade mark value, such use would be regarded as
unfair use and would not confer rights or legitimate interests. If the Respondents use of PPC links on the
Website does not amount to bad faith then the Respondent would succeed under this head.
6.9 In this case, the PPC links on the Website relate to the significance of the name Patricks as a family
and personal name. The Respondent registered and has been using the Domain Name for almost 20 years
prior to having notice of the dispute and more than a decade prior to the Complainants acquiring rights in the
PATRICKS trade mark. There has been no evidence submitted that the PPC links result in a connection to
goods and services relating to the hair industry or is based on the Complainants trade mark value. This
together with the Panels finding below that there has been no registration and use of the Domain Name in
bad faith confirms that the Respondent has established that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6.10 To succeed under the Policy, the Complainant must show that the Domain Name has been both
registered and used in bad faith. It is a conjunctive requirement.

page 8
6.11 The date to consider in determining whether registration was in bad faith is the date that the Domain
Name was registered, March 12, 1997.
6.12 The Panel has considered but rejects the Complainants apparent contention that there may be a new
registration each time the Domain Name is renewed. There is no evidence before the Panel of any change
in the ownership of the Domain Name. Neither is this a case where the circumstances render the renewal to
be considered as equivalent to a new registration. Although there has been a change of the use of the
Domain Name due to the lack of viability of the vanity emails business model, there is no evidence that the
change has been with the intent to benefit from the Complainants trade mark (see Eastman Sporto Group
LLC v. Jim and Kenny, WIPO Case No. D2009-1688).
6.13 The Consensus View in paragraph 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 states as follows:
Generally speaking, although a trade mark can form a basis for a UDRP action under the first element
irrespective of its date, when a domain name is registered by the respondent before the complainants
relied-upon trade mark right is shown to have been first registered (whether on a registered or
unregistered basis), the registration of the domain name would not have been in bad faith because the
registrant could not have contemplated the complainants then non-existent right.
6.14 The Complainants registered trade mark rights postdate the registration of the Domain Name. Further
there is no evidence that it has any unregistered rights to the Patricks name and certainly not that it
predates the Domain Name. Whatever rights accrue from use of the <> domain name
whether from 2010 as the Complainant alleges or 2012 as neutral sources indicate likewise postdate the
registration of the Domain Name by more than a decade. There is no possibility that the Domain Name was
registered in bad faith as the Complainant was not in existence at the time and the Respondent could not
therefore have contemplated the Complainants then non-existent right when he registered the Domain
6.15 Notwithstanding the fact that the Panel has made a finding that the Complainant has failed to establish
the first requirement of this element of the test (which means that the Complaint fails), it will nevertheless
briefly comment on its finding in relation to bad faith use of the Domain Name. In the opinion of the Panel
the Complainant has also failed to establish bad faith use.
6.16 The PPC links on the Website that were submitted in evidence do not in any way compete with the
Complainants services or refer to the Complainant, the Complainants competitors, or the Complainants line
of business.
6.17 The use of the Photograph does not amount to bad faith as it is a commonly used stock photo and has
nothing to do with the CEO of the Complainant. Given the longtime use of this picture by eNom something
the Complainant or its representative could have discovered with minimal diligence this allegation is
6.18 Selling of a domain name is a legitimate business unless it is done in bad faith. Demanding a high
price (particularly in response to an inquiry begun by the mark owner) is not in itself bad faith since the
registration of the Domain Name was legitimate and at no time was the Complainant targeted. The proper
price for any domain name is determined by market forces and not the opinion of the Complainant or of a
UDRP panel. The Respondents offer to sell the Domain Name and the price it demanded from the
Complainant do not amount to bad faith.
6.19 The Panel therefore also finds that the Complainant has failed to show bad faith use on the part of the

page 9
F. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
6.20 This is one of the few cases in which a finding of abuse of the administrative proceeding is beyond
obvious. While such a finding is always a matter of discretion, 1 the Complainants empty rhetoric,
mudslinging, and unsupported factual allegations require this Panel to impose the only sanction available to
6.21 Several aspects of the Complaint in this case constitute well-established reasons for imposing a
finding of abuse:
Complainants only real gripe is the price Respondent demanded for the Domain Name, making this a
classic Plan B case. See Nova Holdings Limited, Nova International Limited, and G.R. Events Limited v.
Manheim Equities, Inc. and Product Reports, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2015-0202. Use of the Policy to
increase leverage in negotiations to purchase a domain name, a highly improper purpose,2 contradicts the
Complainants undertaking (Complaint, paragraph 21; see Rules, paragraph 3(b)(xiii)), that the information
contained in this Complaint is to the best of Complainants knowledge complete and accurate, that this
Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass.
Complainant disregards settled Policy precedent on a number of matters, most notably the WIPO
Overview 2.0s paragraph 3.1 regarding registration of a disputed domain name long before the complainant
obtained any trademark rights. Complainant has similarly ignored longstanding precedent that aggregation
and sale of domain names, standing alone, is deemed legitimate (Id. paragraph 2.6, and cases there cited),
that targeting a mark owner when registering a domain name is typically a necessary element of paragraph
4(a)(iii) of the Policy (Id. paragraph 3.2; see also Orient Express Travel Group Pty Ltd v. Mookstar Media Pty
Ltd (ACN 083 167 293), WIPO Case No. DAU2015-0004); and that invocation of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the
Policy requires proof of prior examples of cybersquatting, not just accusatory and unsupported allegations
(Id, paragraph 3.3; see also Nedbank Limited v. Gregg Ostrick,GNO, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2016-0515);
Complainant presents not a single case in which this Respondent was found by a court or UDRP panel to
have violated the Policy. Complainant appears to believe that strident and repeated noise can take the place
of proof. Rather than explain why the Panel should ignore this Policy precedent the Complainant on no
authority but its own judgment simply categorizes every action by the Respondent as cybersquatting or
otherwise improper. This too violates the Rules paragraph 3(b)(xiii) undertaking, that the assertions in this
Complaint are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be
extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument. This undertaking is not satisfied by speculation, which
is all this Complaint contains. Unsupported theories have no place in Policy proceedings.
Complainant is represented by counsel. Professional representatives of parties in UDRP proceedings
are expected to be aware of or at least familiarize themselves with the Policy and Policy precedent, and to
abide by the Policy and Rules. See Pick Enterprises, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, LLC, /
Woman to Woman Healthcare / Just Us Women Health Center f/k/a Woman to Woman Health Center, WIPO
Case No. D2012-1555; IUNO Advokatpartnerselskab v. Angela Croom, WIPO Case No. D2011-0806;
Dreamgirls, Inc. v. Dreamgirls Entertainment, WIPO Case No. D2006-0609.
6.22 Any of these circumstances justifies a finding of abuse. All in the same case, combined with the
Complainants substituting intemperate language for substantive allegations and hard evidence, make such a
finding obvious.

7. Decision

The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v. Kirkland Holdings LLC, WIPO Case No. D2015-1278, citing

Rudy Rojas v. Gary Davis, WIPO Case No. D2004-1081.

2, LLC v. Marcus Kocak / Internet Opportunity Entertainment (Sports) Limited, Sportingbet PLC, WIPO Case

No. D2012-1193.

page 10
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Karen Fong
Presiding Panelist

Leon Trakman

Richard G. Lyon
Date: June 21, 2016