Cybersquatting Domains Lawyers Advice

Oct. 14, 2009 - PRLog -- Cybersquatting Legal Advice wins another case!

Zac Muscovitch, the Internets premier Domain and Advice Lawyer has prevailed in another Lawsuit for the benefit of his clients.   Mr. Muscovitch specializes in Cybersquatting law, Icann, W.I.P.O, UDRP issues and has brokered substantial Domain Name Sales for his clients.  Mr. Muscovitch provides legal councel to the worlds most successful Domainers and is available to assist his clients and all matters related to Internet Law. Disputes, Cybersquatting, Icann, W.I.P.O, U.D.R.P and much more.

Recent case example...

A. The Parties
1. The Complainant is Globe Media International Corporation, a Canadian business
corporation with its registered offices in Toronto, Ontario. The Complainant's contact
person is Mr. Stefano Venneri. The Complainant's address is 277 Winona Drive, Toronto
Ontario, M6C 3S8.
2. The Registrant/Respondent is Bonfire Development, Inc., a Canadian business
corporation with offices in Calgary, Alberta. The address is 143 Arbour Stone Rise NW,
Calgary, Alberta, T3G 4N4. The Respondent is represented by Mr. Zak Moscovitch of
The Moscovitch Law Firm, 101 Scollard Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5R 1G4.
B. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. The domain name at issue is FORSALE.CA
The domain name is registered with BareMetal.com, Inc.
C. Procedural History
4. The Complainant submitted this Complaint to the Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Provider, Resolution Canada. The Provider served notice of the Complaint to the
Registrant as required by paragraph 4.3 of the CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Rules [“Rules”]. The Complainant elected to have the Complaint heard by a panel of
three as permitted under paragraph 6.4 of the Rules, and nominated potential panelists.
The Respondent suggested one panelist. The Provider selected panelists Jay Josefo and
Eric Macramalla, and David Lametti as Chair.
D. Panel Member Impartiality and Independence Statement
5. As required by paragraph 7.1 of the Rules, the panelists have each declared to the
Provider that they can act impartially and independently in this matter as there are no
circumstances known to them which would prevent any of them from so acting.
E. Canadian Presence Requirement
6. The Complainant is Canadian and thus satisfies the Canadian Presence Requirement
under paragraph 3.4 of the Policy.
F. Initial Statement and Initial Procedural Rulings
7. Significant aspects of this case have been unnecessarily complicated through many
allegations by and submissions from both the Complainant and the Respondent that are
extraneous to the resolution of the domain name dispute at hand, and also beyond the
competence of an arbitration panel constituted under the CIRA Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy [“Policy”] and the Rules. Indeed, a number of the allegations made on
both sides would require a trier of fact with the capability to assess claims and witnesses.
The Panel will therefore restrict itself to findings and holdings appropriate to CIRA
domain name proceedings, and related trade-mark considerations.
8. The Complainant’s Complaint was thirty-nine pages in length, with abundant
additional supporting materials. The Respondent challenged the length according to the
5000 word limit contained in paragraph 3.2(i) of the CIRA Rules. On February 24, 2009,
the Dispute Resolution Provider noted that, absent supporting materials, appendices, etc.,
the body of the Complaint appeared to be close to the 5000 word limit if one interpreted
certain references and quotations as outside the bounds of the actual complaint. As such,
it felt that the Complaint was within the intent of the Rules. The Panel saw no reason to
dispute Resolution Canada’s good faith interpretation of the Rules. Thus, we accepted the
documents.
9. The Panel chose to accept an additional set of counter-claims by the Complainant, as
well as additional counter arguments from the Respondent pursuant to that ruling. The
Panel however did rule on March 25, 2009 in accepting the supplemental filings that no
further material filings would be allowed.
10. The Complainant, subsequent to the nomination of the Panel, challenged the
impartiality of Eric Macramalla on the grounds that he had answered a question via email
on the subject of domain name registration dates to a party that allegedly was linked to
the Respondent. On review of the matter, the Provider and the panelist Eric Macramalla
were of the view that there was no substance to the claim of a conflict: the link was not at
all evident, and the subject matter of the question was abstract and specific to the Policy
itself and was not linked to the facts of this case. The Panel as a whole accepts the
decision by the Provider regarding the allegation of partiality as correct.

http://www.DnAttorney.com

# # #

www.ActLocalThinkGlobal.com

offers Geotarketed Internet and Search Marketing for clients worldwide..Clients markets include Real Estate, Travel, Internet Law, Medical, Hotels, and more.

http://www.DNATTORNEY.COM