Calibers National Shooters Sports Center, LC lost its claim to grab the domain name calibers.com, however the panel refused to find Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) despite the fact that they found the domain holder had legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and did not register and use the disputed domain name in bad faith\
The Panel hold that Complainant has not established a prima facie case in support of its arguments that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent notes that it operates a web directory at Calibers.com and has for 13 years without opposition.
The Panel agrees with Respondent, the Panel find that Respondent can establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel find that Complainant failed to meet the burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel concludes that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the Panel also find that Respondent did not register or use the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent notes that it operates a web directory at calibers.comand has for 13 years without opposition.
According to Respondent, its use of the disputed domain name is one which reflects its business and the domain name itself.
The Panel further find that the Respondent has not registered or used Calibers.com in bad faith
It finds that Respondent has not violated any of the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) or engaged in any other conduct that would constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent notes that it operates a web directory at calibers.com and has done so for 13 years.
According to Respondent, Complainant’s assertion that Respondent is attempting to trade off of Complainant’s reputation is unfounded as Respondent is merely using a descriptive term, “calibers,” which is so closely associated with the industry in which Complainant happens to operate that it lacks any distinctiveness.
The Panel notes that mere assertions of bad faith are not enough by themselves for a finding of bad faith, and that the use of domain names for web directories and the like does not have an impact on this.
Complainant has not submitted any evidence that its service mark and its related services are widely known in particular in China, where Respondent markets its directory services.…
