A trademark holder that believes that a domain name registration infringes on or

dilutes its trademark(s) may initiate proceedings under the The Uniform Domain-Name
Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) by filing a complaint with one of several approved
dispute resolution service providers.
The complainant also must establish the following elements:
1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in
which the complainant has rights.
2. The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
3. The registrant registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
Proving the complainants rights in a mark under the first element can be accomplished
relatively easily if the complainant has obtained a registration for its mark or has wellestablished common law rights. Proving the remaining portion of the first element then
requires an argument that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
The second element can be proven by showing that the registrant had notice of the
complainants mark (e.g., a U.S. domain name registrant had notice of complainants famous
U.S. mark or constructive notice of complainants federal registration), or made no
demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services (e.g., registrant had no website up). This element can also be proven by
showing that the registrant has not been commonly known by the disputed portion of the
domain name, or has not made a legitimate commercial or fair use of the domain name (e.g.,
the registrant instead intends to misleadingly divert customers or tarnish the trademark or
service mark at issue for commercial gain).
The third element can be shown by evidence similar to that used to establish the second
element. For example, if the registrant is not using the domain name in connection with a
bona fide commercial enterprise, is using the domain name to misdirect visitors or is trying to
sell it for more than out-of-pocket costs, the registrant may be deemed to be using the domain
name in bad faith

Bad Faith in Registration

Bad faith registration found because Respondent was aware of the confusing similarity
between his domain name "dubizzle.ae" and Complainant's domain name "dubizzle.com"
Bad faith registration where Respondent knew of Complainant's registration because
Complainant had used the mark for over 5 years:

Generally, generic and descriptive words and phrases will not be

transferred to a Complainant simply because a Complainant has a registered
trademark. Panels look to the circumstances surrounding the registration of the
domain name, including whether:

1. The domain name was acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or
otherwise transferring it to the Complainant;
2. The domain name was acquired to prevent Complainant from reflecting its
trademark in a corresponding domain name;
3. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;
4. Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of
disrupting the business of a competitor; or
5. Respondent intended to attract Internet users to its web site or other on-line
location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the
source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site.
The list is not exhaustive, and since Panels tend to judge the circumstances on a
case-by-case basis, the presence of any one of the circumstances listed above
may (or may not!) be decisive
B. Is being used in bad faith
While the language "is being used in bad faith" could imply bad faith at the time the
Complaint is filed or during the Panel's deliberations, use of a domain in bad faith at any
time after registration will qualify. Otherwise, Respondent could escape by temporarily
ceasing to use the domain every time Complainant protests, files a complaint, or once
the Panel begins its deliberations.