Trans Union Loses transunion.ca

Trans Union LLC, a U.S. corporation (the "Complainant"), commenced an action under the CIRA dispute resolution policy against 1491070 Ontario Inc., an Ontario corporation (the "Registrant"). The Complainant, held registered Canadian trade-marks for "TRANS UNION" and contended that the Registrant's domain name, tranunion.ca, was identical and therefore confusingly similar to the TRANS UNION marks. The Complainant further contended that the domain name had been registered in bad faith since the Registrant had acquired the registration primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant's business. The Registrant was alleged to have diverted Internet users to websites which offer pornographic wares and services for sale. The Complainant asserted that the Registrant was a competitor, acting in opposition to them, by competing for the attention of Internet users. Finally, the Complainant alleged that the Registrant had no legitimate interest in the domain name since there was no connection between the domain name and the Registrant. The Registrant did not respond to this action. A single panelist of ResolutionsCanada Inc. held that while the Complainant had met the burden of proof of establishing that the domain name was confusingly similar to the TRANS UNION Marks, they had not met the burden of proving that the domain name was registered in bad faith. The Complainant had relied on several Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "UDRP") cases that stated that a competitor is someone who acts in opposition to another, including for the attention of Internet users and that there was no requirement that the registrant be a commercial business competitor. The Panelist in the trans Union case stated that there were a number of other decisions that had called for a narrow interpretation of "disrupting a business". The Panelist held that the language in the CIRA policy must be given a narrow interpretation. The Panelist also noted the important differences between UDRP policy and the CIRA policy, stating that there was no room for a "broad" interpretation of the CIRA policy and deciding that he was bound by the Policy's explicit limitations. The Panelist concluded that the Complainant had not satisfied its burden under section 4.1 of the CIRA Policy in that it had failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Registrant had registered the domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panelist denied the Complaint's request for a transfer of the domain name. For a copy of the decision, visit: http://www.resolutioncanada.ca/en/decisions/TRA-030423-001011.pdf Summary by: Kiran Sah