Domaınımı benden habersız almıslar

Question

Domaınımı  benden habersız almıslar
bu nasıl olabıolır

Cobra · Answer

Evet alabilirler, ayrıca domain bilgilerininde gerçek olmadığını yazmışlar.

Geri alamassın boşuna yorma kendini, geçmiş olsun.

ghostdizayn · Answer

AlwaysFc adlı üyeden alıntı:						mesajı görüntüle									Hortlasa gene iyi Pörtlemiş
Bu arada Domaınlerın üzerine soğuk su içtim 		 uahah buz gibi limmoooNAAAAAATAAA

AlwaysFc · Answer

Hortlasa gene iyi Pörtlemiş
Bu arada Domaınlerın üzerine soğuk su içtim

pRoFeSSioNaL · Answer

Konu hortlamış

ManuaL · Answer

@rapley konunun açılma tarihine baktın mı şöyle bi göz ucuyla da olsa ?

rapley · Answer

AlwaysFc adlı üyeden alıntı: mesajı görüntüle

Benım adıma kayıtlı domaını nasıl alabılırler boyle bısey mumkun mu

Mümkün. Bunu domaini aldığın yer yapabilir. Ben yerli çalışırım daima. Ne olur ne olmaz. Bu adamlarla iletişim ayrı bir dert. Bu tecrübe olacaktır zaten. Gerçekten üzüldüm. Umarım geri alabilirsin. Ama tavsiyem Türkçe iletişim kurabileceğin bir yerden alış-veriş yap.

geçmiş olsun..

geçmiş olsun..

ExAskim · Answer

Senin kötü niyetli olduğunu düşünüyorlar, senden istenenleri de yapmamışsın elinden almışlar domainini...

AlwaysFc · Answer

cyberjack adlı üyeden alıntı:						mesajı görüntüle									Hepsii okumaya üşendim am agöz ucuyla bakınca:
Daha önce seni uyarmışlar domaini elinden almalarının birçok sebebi var. Göze batanları:
livescore.com ile benzer içeriğe sahişp olman lonların 8 sene önce başlamış olmaları ve seni ICANN a şikayet etmeleri
domainin whois bilgilerinin yanlış olması ve uyarıya rağmen bunu düzeltmemen
HotLivescore.com ve HotLivescore.net 
http://whois.domaintools.com/hotlivescore.net
Hotlivescore.com Hot Live Score [2007-02-27]
bu iki whois de mail adresleri ve ns ler aynı olmasına rağmen adresler yanlış olduğu için senin iyi niyetli bir domain kayıtcısı olmadığını düşünoyrlarmış
Özetle yakındır LiveScore.com iki alan adını da elinden alacak yada almış... 		Ne demek hakları var
skor sonucları sunan ve livescore dıye baslayan bır cok fırma var 
benzer ıcerık olması bbır neden mı
live score - Google Search

Buraya bakarsan sadece uzantısı degısık bır suru lıvescore var

ercan · Answer

Geçmiş Olsun Gerçekten Üzücü Bir Durum  
 
İnşallah Domainlerini Geri Alabilirsin Dostum , Saygılar..

cyberjack · Answer

Hepsii okumaya üşendim am agöz ucuyla bakınca:

Daha önce seni uyarmışlar domaini elinden almalarının birçok sebebi var. Göze batanları:

livescore.com ile benzer içeriğe sahişp olman lonların 8 sene önce başlamış olmaları ve seni ICANN a şikayet etmeleri

domainin whois bilgilerinin yanlış olması ve uyarıya rağmen bunu düzeltmemen

HotLivescore.com ve HotLivescore.net 
http://whois.domaintools.com/hotlivescore.net
Hotlivescore.com Hot Live Score [2007-02-27]

bu iki whois de mail adresleri ve ns ler aynı olmasına rağmen adresler yanlış olduğu için senin iyi niyetli bir domain kayıtcısı olmadığını düşünoyrlarmış

Özetle yakındır LiveScore.com iki alan adını da elinden alacak yada almış...

AlwaysFc · Answer

Gecerlı bır sebeplerı yok 
sadece onlarının ısmınden onlarca domaın yayın yaparken 
benımkıne ısmımızı kullanıyorsun bahanesını kullanmaları sacma
ayrıca bu serefsızlıgı yapan domaın fırması
bunların suclamasına gore
motor.com fırması
gmcmotor.com
cryslermotor.com
hondamotor.com

bunlarıda sıkayet edıp ellerınden domaınlerını alabılırler

drstranger · Answer

müvekkilimi rahat bırakın, 
gerekli açıklma size daha sonra size yapılacaktır.

webuser · Answer

domainler neydi merak ettim ?

edit : mailde yazıyormuş ...

AlwaysFc · Answer

Cobra adlı üyeden alıntı:						mesajı görüntüle									Evet alabilirler, ayrıca domain bilgilerininde gerçek olmadığını yazmışlar. 
Geri alamassın boşuna yorma kendini, geçmiş olsun. 		sebep......

AlwaysFc · Answer

drstranger adlı üyeden alıntı:						mesajı görüntüle									hehe , sırf eğlencesine aldım worde yapıstırdım cevirisi ile birlikte yaklasık 30 sayfa, dili korkunc ağır isteyen olursa 350 ytl ye çevirir veirirm, en uygun  		msn gel......

drstranger · Answer

hehe , sırf eğlencesine aldım worde yapıstırdım cevirisi ile birlikte yaklasık 30 sayfa, dili korkunc ağır isteyen olursa 350 ytl ye çevirir veirirm, en uygun

AlwaysFc · Answer

evet domaınlerımı sıtemıslerdı reg fee mıktarını verelım yoksa dava acacaz dedıler sımdı baktım ıslem tamalandı dıye maıol geldı panelımde domaınler yok

Haymac · Answer

Complainant&#8217;s website at LiveScore.com is one of the most active sports entertainment sites on the Internet. According to statistics obtained by Complainant from the Web information website Alexa.com, LiveScore.com ranks as the most visited website under the Soccer category and one of the top ten sites under the Sports category (see Exhibit F). Complainant&#8217;s website registered in excess of 460 million page views in the month of November 2006, as well as 9,915,051 &#8216;unique visitors&#8217; for the same month (see Exhibit G).

livescore  ile alakalı   ingilizcesi iyi olan birisi çeviriversin ama konu hukuki

AlwaysFc · Answer

Benım adıma kayıtlı domaını nasıl alabılırler boyle bısey mumkun mu

AlwaysFc · Answer

Complainant agrees that his claims and remedies concerning the registration of the domain names, the dispute, or the dispute&#8217;s resolution shall be solely against the domain name holder and waives all such claims and remedies against (a) the NAF and panelists, except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, (b) the registrar, (c) the registry administrator, and (d) the ICANN, as well as their directors, officers, employees, and agents. 
      Complainant certifies that the information contained in this Amended Complaint is to the best of Complaint's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and 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

AlwaysFc · Answer

Respondent is using the subject domain names to direct Web users to its HotLivescore.com website, which markets a service that is identical to, and directly competes with, Complainant&#8217;s services at LiveScore.com (see Exhibits B and J).  Appropriating Complainant&#8217;s trademark to promote a competing service with confusingly similar domain names is not a bona fide offering of a good or service pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Clear Channel Commc&#8217;ns, Inc. v. Beaty Enters., FA 135008 (NAF Jan. 2, 2003) [finding that the respondent, as a competitor of the complainant, had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that utilized the complainant&#8217;s mark for its competing website]; see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (NAF June 23, 2003) [holding that Respondent&#8217;s appropriation of Complainant&#8217;s mark to market products that compete with Complainant&#8217;s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services]. 
      Furthermore, Respondent is not commonly known, either as an individual, business or organization, by the names associated with the domain names.  See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (NAF Feb. 10, 2003) [stating &#8220;nothing in Respondent&#8217;s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is &#8216;commonly known by&#8217; the disputed domain name&#8221; as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply]; see also Broadcomm Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (NAF February 5, 2001) [finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use].  Complainant notes that the WHOIS information lists &#8220;hotlive&#8221; as the registrant of HOTLIVESCORE.COM and &#8220;aaaaaaaaaaaaa&#8221; as the registrant of HOTLIVESCORE.NET, and nowhere in the WHOIS contact information is there reference made to the subject domains or the corresponding names (e.g. &#8220;Hotlivescore&#8221;), other than for particular domain names (see Exhibits H and I).
      Complainant states that there is no affiliation, association or business relationship of any kind with Respondent and Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use LIVESCORE in any manner.  See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) [finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name].  In fact, Complainant and Respondent are direct competitors, both of which offer online access to real-time scores for sporting events (see Exhibits B and J). Given Complainant&#8217;s long established use of the LIVESCORE mark in the same market in which, some eight years later, Respondent began offering identical services, Respondent cannot claim to be commonly known by the subject domain names (see Exhibits C, H and I).
      The Panel should note that there is, in fact, a substantial likelihood that Complainant&#8217;s mark LIVESCORE and the goodwill associated therewith, were the reasons Respondent registered the subject domains.  Sizeable Web user traffic is generated from websites associated with widely known marks, and it appears that Respondent sought to take advantage of this circumstance with LiveScore.com.  Misguided Web users seeking Complainant&#8217;s website may be confronted with the subject domain names and a reasonable user could assume that the subject domains are somehow connected to LiveScore.com.
      Finally, Respondent is not making a non-commercial or fair use of the subject domain name.  The HotLivescore.com site associated with the subject domain names is clearly commercial in nature and the subject domain names are being operated for the financial benefit of the Respondent (see Exhibit J).  Specifically, the website includes advertisement for various gaming entertainment services, similar to the advertisers on Complainant&#8217;s LiveScore.com site (see Exhibits B and J; see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., Case No. D2001-0252 (WIPO April 9, 2001) [finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from the Complainant's site to a competing website]. 
      Thus, Respondent has no legitimate interests in the subject domain names, as legitimate interests are defined in Section 4(c)(i)-(iii) of the UDRP and, therefore, the second element of the Complaint under Section 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP is also satisfied. 
      3. The Subject Domain Names Have Been Registered And Are Being Used In
            Bad Faith
      Respondent has registered and is using the confusingly similar subject domain names in bad faith under Sections 4(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the UDRP.
      Respondent registered the subject domain names within the past year, long after Complainant had adopted, used and registered the LIVESCORE trademark (see Exhibits C, H and I).  The Respondent is using the subject domain names in connection with HotLivescore.com, in direct competition with Complainant&#8217;s real-time sports scores service (see Exhibits B and J). 
      Respondent registered HOTIVESCORE.COM on September 13, 2006 and HOTLIVESCORE.NET on October 8, 2006, long after Complainant adopted and registered the LIVESCORE mark (see Exhibits C, H and I).  Moreover, when registering the subject domain names, Respondent was clearly aware of the existence of the Complainant and its trademark rights in that the only difference between the subject domain names and Complainant&#8217;s LIVESCORE mark is the addition of the term &#8220;hot&#8221; and the addition of the gTLDs &#8220;com&#8221; and &#8220;net&#8221; respectively  (see Exhibits C, H and I).  Respondent is using the subject domain names in connection with its own website, in direct competition with Complainant&#8217;s service (see Exhibits B and J). 
      After Complainant learned of the registration and use of the subject domains, legal counsel sent Respondent communications requesting that it (1) cease using the subject domain names and (2) transfer the domains to Complainant (see Exhibits L and M).  Respondent never replied to the communications. 
      Addressing the Section 4(b)(ii) claim first, Respondent has registered and is using two domain names that incorporate Complainant&#8217;s well-known LIVESCORE trademark, actions that involve a pattern of conduct directed against the Complainant and stopping it from reflecting its trademark in corresponding domain names (see Exhibits C, H and I).  A "pattern of conduct" as required under a Section (b)(ii) claim typically involves multiple domain names directed against multiple Complainants, but may also involve multiple domain names directed against a single Complainant. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Ozurls, Case No. D2001-0046 (WIPO March 20, 2001) [Respondents' fifteen domain names involving Complainant&#8217;s mark and a series of services, products, geographical descriptors, or generic words obviously involves a pattern of conduct directed against the Complainant under 4(b)(ii)].  Hence, Respondent&#8217;s registration and use of two domain names that incorporate Complainant&#8217;s mark is in bad faith under Section 4(b)(ii) of the UDRP. 
      Addressing the Section 4(b)(iii) next, Respondent is clearly functioning as a competitor of Complainant by offering an identical real-time sport scores service in the same channel of trade associated with Complainant&#8217;s LIVESCORE mark and LiveScore.com website (see Exhibits B and J).  Such unauthorized offering of services in connection with domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant&#8217;s trademark is evidence that Respondent registered and is using the subject domain names in bad faith under 4(b)(iii) by registering the subject domains primarily to disrupt Complainant&#8217;s business. See Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) [finding that, given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, Respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion]; see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (NAF July 18, 2000) [finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant&#8217;s business]. 
      Turning to the Section 4(b)(iv) claim, Respondent has registered and is using the subject domain names in bad faith as Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Web users to a commercial online service that competes directly with Complainant&#8217;s real-time sports scores service (see Exhibits B and J).  The HotLivescore.com website associated with the subject domains also features advertisement for gaming entertainment services (see Exhibit J).    By selecting and using domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to direct users to a website that offers a commercial service that competes with Complainant&#8217;s service, Respondent has acted in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (NAF June 23, 2003) [finding that Respondent&#8217;s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with Complainant&#8217;s illustrates Respondent&#8217;s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Section 4(b)(iv)]; see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carrol, FA 97035 (NAF May 14, 2001) [finding bad faith where Respondent used the disputed domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of Complainant]. 
      In addition, Respondent registered the subject domain names with constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant&#8217;s rights in LIVESCORE (see Exhibits C, H and I).  Due to Complainant&#8217;s registration of the mark with the USPTO, constructive knowledge is conferred onto Respondent.  See Orange Glo Int&#8217;l v. Blume, FA 118313 (NAF Oct. 4, 2002) [&#8220;Complainant&#8217;s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.&#8221;].  Moreover, because of the similarity between the service found at Respondent&#8217;s website and Complainant&#8217;s services, the Panel should infer that Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant&#8217;s rights in the LIVESCORE trademark.  Registration of confusingly similar domain names despite constructive or actual knowledge is bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Digi Int&#8217;l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (NAF Oct. 24, 2002) [holding that &#8220;there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant&#8217;s trademarks, actually or constructively&#8221;]. 
      Finally, Respondent has included blatantly false contact information to the WHOIS data for both domain names (see Exhibits H and I).  Providing false contact information violates the UDRP, namely Section 2 of the Policy. ("you hereby represent and warrant to us that (a) the statements that you made in your Registration Agreement are complete and accurate").  Furthermore, previous Panel decisions have found that providing false identification information is evidence of bad faith.  See Florists' Transworld Delivery, Inc. v. United Pahlavi Trust, FA 811796 (NAF Nov. 13, 2006) [Respondent false information in its WHOIS registration is further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)]; see also Carfax, Inc. d/b/a Carfax v. Auto Check USA, Case No. D2001-0929 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2001) [Registrant's use of false identification information in the domain name&#8217;s registry record is evidence of bad faith].  Such action not only shows evidence of bad faith, it also shows contempt for the UDRP and the entire domain name registration system. 
      In light of the facts discussed above, the inescapable conclusion is that Respondent is attempting to benefit commercially from the confusion created by the registration and use of HOTLIVESCORE.COM and HOTLIVESCORE.NET, which are virtually identical and clearly confusingly similar to Complainant&#8217;s LIVESCORE trademark.  Respondent&#8217;s activities in the instant case prove that the registration and use of the subject domains is in bad faith, as such registration and use is defined in Sections 4(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the UDRP and, therefore, the third and final element of Mr. Jerie's Complaint under Section 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP is satisfied. 
      Based on the foregoing, Complainant submits that the evidence shows that the subject domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has clear senior rights; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names; and the subject domains have been registered and are being used in bad faith.  Accordingly, Complainant requests that this Panel order the transfer of the subject domain names to Complainant, which holds clear senior rights in the LIVESCORE trademark.  A decision by this Panel to preserve the status quo would serve only to reward Respondent for engaging in bad faith and unlawful conduct with respect to the domain name registrations, and would encourage others like Respondent to do the same. 
[6.] REMEDY SOUGHT 
      Complainant requests that the Panel issue a decision that the registrations for the subject domain names be transferred to Complainant, pursuant to Paragraph 4(i) of the UDRP. 
[7.] OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 
      No other legal proceedings have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to Respondent&#8217;s registration or use of the subject domain names. 
[8.] COMPLAINT TRANSMISSION 
      Complainant asserts that a copy of this Complaint, together with the cover sheet as prescribed by NAF&#8217;s Supplemental Rules, has been sent or transmitted to the Respondent, in accordance with ICANN Rule 2(b) and to the registrar of the subject domain names, in accordance with NAF Supp. Rule 4(e). 
[9.] MUTUAL JURISDICTION 
      The Complainant will submit, solely with respect to any challenges to a decision in the administrative proceeding canceling or transferring the subject domain names, to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Washington, USA, the location of the principal office of the concerned registrar. 
[10.] CERTIFICATION

AlwaysFc · Answer

maıl yollamıslar devamı bu 
						Alıntı										FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS

This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds, as per ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix).

Complainant must first address a procedural matter regarding the listed &#8216;registrants&#8217; for the subject domain names, namely Hotlive c/o Zeynel Brown aka Aaaaaaaaaaaaa c/o Yok Yok.  ICANN Rules provide that a &#8220;complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder" See Rules, para. 3(c) at Exhibit O.  Previous Panels under the UDRP have recognized that a Complainant would be faced with an &#8220;unjustifiable economic burden&#8221; if it was required to bring several separate administrative proceedings, &#8220;and that it would be a burden on the administrative process&#8221; to require it to duplicate its effort in the same case (see Exhibit P).

As Complainant has determined through its investigations, there are a number of factors that link the two listed registrants.  First, Complainant notes that the subject domain names are being used in the same manner, namely directing Web users to the website HotLivescore.com (see Exhibit J).  Next, according to the WHOIS database information for both domain names, &#8220;zeynelbrown@gmail.com&#8221; is the listed email address for the administrative and technical contact for both domains (see Exhibits H and I).  Furthermore, ns1.iddaasiteleri.net and ns2.iddaasiteleri.net is the name server information listed with both domain names and &#8220;zeynelbrown@gmail.com&#8221; is the listed email address for the administrative and technical contact for the associated domain name, IDDAASITELERI.NET (see Exhibit K).

In addition, the WHOIS information for both subject domains is clearly incomplete and false, in all likelihood to conceal the true registrant&#8217;s identification.  Specifically, the listed address for HOTLIVESCORE.COM is &#8220;Manhattan, GB&#8221; and the listed address for HOTLIVESCORE.NET is &#8220;yokyokyok, yok, yok, yok, yok Turkey&#8221; (see Exhibits H and I).

The Panel should find that it would place an unjustifiable economic burden on Complainant to require him to initiate separate administrative proceedings for the respective subject domain names and that it would be a burden on the administrative process to require duplication of effort, in the context of this case. The two registrants shall hereinafter be referred to as "Respondent", except as is otherwise necessary for the sake of clarity.

The Respondent registered HOTLIVESCORE.COM with the registrar NamesDirect.com Ltd. (hereinafter &#8220;NamesDirect&#8221;) on September 13, 2006, eight years after Complainant adopted and began using the LIVESCORE trademark for its services at LiveScore.com (see Exhibits C and H).  Respondent apparently registered HOTLIVESCORE.NET with NamesDirect on October 8, 2006 (see Exhibit I).

The subject domain names are being used in connection with Respondent&#8217;s HotLivescore.com, a website that features services identical to, and that directly compete with, Complainant&#8217;s services (see Exhibits B and J).  In particular, the website associated with the subject domain names provides Web users with real-time scores for sporting events, including soccer (see Exhibit J).  Furthermore, the website associated with the subject domain names features advertisement for numerous gaming entertainment services, including BetandWin.com, CasinoEuro.com and Expekt.com (see Exhibit J).   Web users who reach the subject domain names also encounter several &#8216;pop-up&#8217; advertisements for other commercial services, including Betsson.com, further frustrating users seeking to access Complainant&#8217;s LiveScore.com website (see Exhibit J).

In accordance with Complainant's usual practice for dealing with third parties it believes are attempting to trade on the name and good will of the valuable LIVESCORE trademark, Complainant&#8217;s legal counsel sent a cease and desist communication to Respondent to the email address zeynelbrown@gmail.com on November 24, 2006, giving notice to Respondent that the registration and use of HOTLIVESCORE.COM infringed and diluted LIVESCORE (see Exhibit L).  Complainant requested, among other things, that Respondent immediately cease all use of HOTLIVESCORE.COM and begin an immediate transfer of the domain name (see Exhibit L).  Complainant also offered to compensate the Respondent the domain&#8217;s registration fee for HOTLIVESCORE.COM (see Exhibit L).

Additional investigations by Complainant uncovered Respondent&#8217;s registration and use of HOTLIVESCORE.NET (see Exhibits I and J).  Complainant&#8217;s counsel sent Respondent a follow-up communication via email on November 29, 2006, giving notice that HOTLIVESCORE.NET also infringed and diluted LIVESCORE and requesting it disable and transfer that domain name as well (see Exhibit M).

Respondent never responded to either communications and has continued to use the subject domain names at the time of the filing of this Complaint (see Exhibit J).

In light of the facts discussed above, Respondent has been involved in a pattern of bad faith domain name registration and use and Respondent&#8217;s conduct with regard to the subject domain names in the instant case serves as a classic example of the type of behavior the UDRP was instituted to remedy.

1. The Applicable Standards

Under Section 4(a) of the UDRP, an administrative proceeding resulting in the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant is required where (i) the domain is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and (iii) the domain has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Under Section 4(b)(ii) of the UDRP, registering a domain name primarily for the purpose of preventing a Complainant from reflecting its trademark, shall be evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name

Under Section 4(b)(iii) of the UDRP, registering or acquiring a domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor shall be evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name.

Under Section 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP, registering or acquiring a domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant&#8217;s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, shall be evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name.

The facts and evidence will show Respondent has intentionally, and in bad faith, registered and is using as domain names the confusingly similar HOTLIVESCORE.COM and HOTLIVESCORE.NET in violation of Sections (b)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the UDRP.

1. The Subject Domain Names Are Confusingly Similar To A Mark In Which Complainant Has Rights

Complainant&#8217;s LiveScore.com is one of the most popular websites worldwide for providing sports enthusiasts real-time soccer match scores (see Exhibits B and F).  The LIVESCORE trademark has been used in connection with Complainant&#8217;s service continuously since 1998 (see Exhibits C and G).  The service offered under the LIVESCORE mark includes scores from over 100 soccer leagues that span 38 countries across Europe, South America, Asia and North America, as well as international soccer competitions (see Exhibit B).  Complainant&#8217;s service also includes real time coverage of tennis and ice hockey competitions (see Exhibit B).  Complainant&#8217;s service is also available to the consuming public through wireless application protocol (WAP) enabled mobile phone service or other WAP-enabled devices (see Exhibit B).  Complainant&#8217;s LiveScore.com has recently formed a partnership with one of the most popular online sportsbook PinnacleSports.com, furthering the brand awareness of LIVESCORE (see Exhibit N).

Complainant&#8217;s website at LiveScore.com is one of the most active sports entertainment sites on the Internet.  According to statistics obtained by Complainant from the Web information website Alexa.com, LiveScore.com ranks as the most visited website under the Soccer category and one of the top ten sites under the Sports category (see Exhibit F). Complainant&#8217;s website registered in excess of 460 million page views in the month of November 2006, as well as 9,915,051 &#8216;unique visitors&#8217; for the same month (see Exhibit G).

By virtue of the quality of its service and over eight years of continuous use and extensive advertising and promotion, the LIVESCORE mark is well known to, and well regarded by, the consuming public (see Exhibits F, G and N).  Complainant has firmly established common law rights in LIVESCORE through widespread and continuous use of the mark since as early as 1998 (see Exhibits C and G); see also Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (NAF May 18, 2001) [finding that the UDRP does not require &#8220;that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist&#8221;].

Complainant has also established additional rights in the trademark LIVESCORE in association with its services through its registration on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (hereinafter &#8220;USPTO&#8221;) on December 4, 2001 (see Exhibit C).  In addition, Complainant also owns a European Union (CTM) service mark registration for LIVESCORE (see Exhibit D).  Such evidence of trademark registration with government authorities proves Complainant&#8217;s rights in the LIVESCORE mark. See Janus Int&#8217;l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) [finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive].

Additionally, in light of Complainant&#8217;s clear rights in the cited trademark and, pursuant to the authority of the USPTO, Respondent was placed on constructive notice of Complainant&#8217;s rights to LIVESCORE.  Those rights clearly preceded Respondent&#8217;s registration of the subject domains, which were only registered within the past year (see Exhibits C, H and I); see also Vivid Video, Inc. v. Michele Dinoia, FA 155465 (NAF May 27, 2003)  ["First, both the marks are registered on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Such registration gives Respondent at least constructive knowledge of Complainant&#8217;s interests in marks that are confusingly similar and identical to the <vividtv.com> domain name."]; see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) [finding that the UDRP does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which a Respondent operates.  It is sufficient that a Complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction].

Finally, this Forum has recognized Complainant&#8217;s rights in the LIVESCORE trademark in five previous proceedings under the UDRP (see Exhibit E).

Turning to the subject domain names, they are nearly identical to - and confusingly similar to - Complainant&#8217;s senior LIVESCORE trademark.  Specifically, both HOTLIVESCORE.COM and HOTLIVESCORE.NET fully incorporate Complainant&#8217;s trademark in its entirety and deviate from the mark only with the addition of the descriptive/generic term &#8220;hot&#8221; and the inclusion of the non-distinctive generic code top-level domains (&#8220;gTLD&#8221;) &#8220;.com&#8221; and &#8220;net&#8221; (see Exhibits C, H and I).  Complainant&#8217;s mark is the dominant element of each subject domain name and the addition of the term &#8220;hot&#8221; and the respective gTLDs do not sufficiently differentiate Respondent&#8217;s domain names from LIVESCORE.  There is a long line of Panel decisions that have found that the mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered trademark does not negate the confusing similarity of a domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See America Online, Inc. v. Robert Miller, FA 180625 (NAF Sept. 15, 2003) [Domain includes Complainant&#8217;s mark with the addition of the descriptive word &#8220;hot,&#8221; which does not dispel any confusion arising from the inclusion of Complainant&#8217;s mark in the domain name]; see also L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (NAF Sept. 14, 2000) [finding that combining the generic word &#8220;shop&#8221; with Complainant&#8217;s mark &#8220;llbean&#8221; does not circumvent Complainant&#8217;s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the Policy]; see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) [finding that the top level of the domain name such as &#8220;.net&#8221; or &#8220;.com&#8221; does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar].

Finally, when used in the context of identical services, the subject domain names are clearly confusingly similar to Complainant&#8217;s LIVESCORE trademark (see Exhibits B and J); see also Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (NAF Dec. 18, 2000) [finding that confusion would result when Web users, intending to access Complainant&#8217;s website, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist].  Complainant and Respondent offer identical services in the same market, namely offering sports enthusiasts real-time scores for sporting events (see Exhibits B and J).  Clearly, the Panel can infer Respondent had actual knowledge of the LIVESCORE mark when registering the subject domain names.

Given the obvious similarity of the subject domain names with Complainant&#8217;s LIVESCORE trademark, as well as Respondent&#8217;s pattern of registering and using domains that incorporate the Complainant&#8217;s mark, it is evident that the subject domains are confusingly similar to LIVESCORE, as was intended by the Respondent.  The Panel should conclude that Respondent registered and is using the confusingly similar domain names to take advantage of Complainant&#8217;s reputation and goodwill in LIVESCORE.  The subject domain names are likely to confuse Complainant&#8217;s customers and potential customers into believing that there is some affiliation, connection, sponsorship, approval or association between the Respondent and Complainant when in fact none exists.

Thus, Section 4(a)(i) of the UDRP is satisfied.

2. Respondent Has No Rights Or Legitimate Interests In The

Subject Domain Names

Respondent has wholly incorporated Complainant&#8217;s LIVESCORE trademark in the subject domain names to offer sports enthusiasts online access to real-time scores for sporting events (see Exhibits B, H and I).  Respondent&#8217;s services are identical to Complainant&#8217;s services, the latter of which have been offered to consumers since 1998 (see Exhibits C and G).  However, Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the subject domain names under the UDRP.

AlwaysFc · Answer

Dear Ms. Johnson:
 
The changes requested have now been made to the Respondent Information section of the Complaint.
 
Should the Forum have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 781.526.3934 or at sfheneghan@comcast.net.

Very truly yours,

son maıl bu

Haymac · Answer

hangi firma neresi, support'a mail attınmı böyle böyle diye ?

AlwaysFc · Answer

elımdekı kullandıgım domaın panelımde yok
bır ton maıl yollamılar

Haymac · Answer

tam olarak nedir ?

whois çektiğin domainmi alındı sen almadan,

yoksa elindeki domain mi uçtu