This month marks the 25th year of operations for the .CA domain,
Canada's country-code top-level domain (ccTLD). It was
originally allocated to John Demco, an employee of UBC, who
operated the domain on a volunteer basis between 1987 and 2000,
when it was formally transferred to CIRA (the Canadian Internet
Registration Authority). I still recall the days when the mentality
around domain name disputes was quite simple - someone knew someone
who knew Jon Postel, who could simply reallocate the nameservers.
Today, .CA disputes are resolved through formal arbitration under
the CDRP - the CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, version
1.3 which came into effect August 22, 2011. A few recent
Transfer Granted: In
Oakley Inc. v. Zhou Yayang, the famous manufacturer of
sunglasses and sportswear claimed rights in the domain name
DISCOUNT-OAKLEYSUNGLASSES-SALE.CA. This case was a classic
"squatter" case which featured a registrant who filed no
defence. Evidence that the domain was being used to sell Oakley
products outside of Oakley's distribution chain. A long line of
decisions was cited to support Oakley's win, and the domain
name was ordered to be transferred.
Claim Dismissed: In
Ebates Canada Inc. v. Cranhill & Co., there was a dispute
about the EBATES.CA domain name. Ebates Canada claimed that it was
the exclusive Canadian licensee of the trade-mark EBATES, a mark
which is the subject of two competing trade-mark applications in
the Canadian trade-marks office. Cranhill, the registrant, argued
that it enjoyed earlier use of the name EBATES dating back to 1994
and had rights in 2000, the year the domain name was registered. In
deciding to dismiss the complaint, the panelists noted that the
claimant Ebates Canada Inc. was not incorporated until 2011. It did
not exist in 2000 and could not have had any rights at the time the
domain name was registered.
What's the overall chance of success? If recent statistics
are any guide, decisions are most often rendered in favour of
applicants. There have been 51 decisions in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (to
date) and of those decisions, roughly 80% of decisions have
resulted in a transfer; in about 20% of the cases, the claim was
dismissed. That may reflect the fact that applicants will only
pursue a remedy through the CDRP when they have a strong case. In
about 64% of the cases, a single arbitrator was used, as opposed to
a panel of 3 decison-makers. Interestingly, of the cases in which
the claim was dismissed, the majority (72%) were decided by a
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On March 11, 2009, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions of Canada (OSFI) released a revised version of Guideline B-10, Outsourcing of Business Activities, Functions and Processes.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).