I think some need to go RE-READ the entire desicion ..
The MAIN reason he lost his his Prior registrations and current registrations all show BAD FAITH..he has not shown any legitimate reason for registering the domain.. as in NO Business, it isnt "his" name etc..
I own SaintCloud.Us ..am I worried?
Not in the least , I live here (saint cloud) I work here, I run a business off it..(well at least attempting to get a business going..classified ads)
http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=d01qla.2.3
Here are some of the more "telling" points aginst the registrant...
39. The key element which distinguishes the name NEW ZEALAND in the trading world is that New Zealand constitutes a singular legal and political entity who is entitled to the entire control of that name politically, emotionally and in commerce.
40. This was not the case in the earlier decisions. For instance, Barcelona is only one region of Spain. It is not subject to overall control by any singular entity.
41. New Zealand is clearly a trade and service mark within the meaning of clause 4(a)(i) of the STOP Policy and is owned by the citizens, organizations and State of New Zealand.
42. The Domain Name is identical to the mark NEW ZEALAND, as previous WIPO decisions have clearly established that a domain name extension performs a functional role only and is not to be considered when comparing trade marks with domain names."
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name. Complainant has not been able to find evidence that Respondent resides in or does business in New Zealand, and to the best of its knowledge Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, is not endorsed by Complainant, does and did not have Complainantââ¬â¢s permission to use its mark in a domain name, is not the beneficiary of a trade or service mark identical to the disputed domain name, has not made demonstrable preparations to use the name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, and has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant refers to seventy-five domain names registered by Respondent, several of which are country names or names of geographical regions, including, e.g., <arizona.biz>, <britain.biz>, <iraq.biz>, <greenland.biz>, <kansas.biz>, <libya.biz>, <luxembourg.biz>, <montana.biz>, <syria.biz> and <turkey.biz> (see Complaint, Annex 8). Complainant states that "The wide diversity of domain names owned by the Respondent makes it highly unlikely that the Respondent has legitimate rights to all or even any of them".
Complaint indicates that when it contacted Respondent requesting transfer of the disputed domain name, Respondent refused and did not provide information to suggest that it had a legitimate right to the name.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and/or is being used in bad faith. Complainant suggests domain names are a major portal by which citizens, organizations and institutions of a country promote their goods and services. Persons seeking to do business in a country via the Internet will assume that the domain name [country].biz is run by or on behalf of its institutions, so that the mere acquisition of a [country].biz name by a person who is not a citizen, organization of or the state is an act in bad faith. Thus, Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent was well aware that the mark NEW ZEALAND belonged to Complainant when it registered the name, and since it could not lawfully use the name for itself, Respondent must have intended to sell it to Complainant or one of its "integers".
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent Complainant or any of its individuals or businesses from registering it, and that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct.
