This decision orders the following names transferred to the complainant:
<antoinedesaintexupery.com>, <saint-exupery.com> and <saintexupery.com>.
It is dated June 9, 2005.
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0165.html
The domain names refer to Antoine de Saint Exupery, a French author and pilot.
He's well-known as author of "The Little Prince"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156012197/
and was a close friend of Charles Lindbergh.
He died during a military mission in World War 2.
The "Factual Background" of the decision says:
The complaiant is in France, the respondent is in the British Virgin Islands.
The panel found:
The panel found bad faith because the respondent's site contains affiliate links to amazon.com, and barnesandnoble.com, etc.
Is this decision fair?
<antoinedesaintexupery.com>, <saint-exupery.com> and <saintexupery.com>.
It is dated June 9, 2005.
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0165.html
The domain names refer to Antoine de Saint Exupery, a French author and pilot.
He's well-known as author of "The Little Prince"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156012197/
and was a close friend of Charles Lindbergh.
He died during a military mission in World War 2.
The "Factual Background" of the decision says:
The Complainant is the owner of the French registered trademark ANTOINE DE SAINT EXUPERY, as well as International Trademark ANTOINE DE SAINT EXUPERY in the Austria, Belgium, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Liechtenstein and Portugal.
The Respondent operates a website currently dedicated to the work of Antoine de Saint Exupery using the disputed domain name <saint-exupery.com>, where he provides information about Antoine de Saint Exupery, as well as offers links to commercial websites that sell various merchandise, including the books, related to Antoine de Saint Exupery.
The complaiant is in France, the respondent is in the British Virgin Islands.
The panel found:
...the Respondent's arguments that the name of famous deceased persons should not be protected as trademarks are not relevant...
The panel found bad faith because the respondent's site contains affiliate links to amazon.com, and barnesandnoble.com, etc.
Is this decision fair?