The Complainant has not shown that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).
The Panel decides on the basis of the amended complaint and of the attached exhibits that have been translated into English, which is the language of the proceeding.
The burden of proof lies on the Complainant.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the domain name of the Respondent be transferred to the Complainant:
1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark ("mark") in which the Complainant has rights; and
2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
Pursuant to Paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1) of the Rules, the Complainant has to:
“(viii) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and, for each mark, describe the goods or services, if any, with which the mark is used (Complainant may also separately describe other goods and services with which it intends, at the time the complaint is submitted, to use the mark in the future).
(ix) Describe, in accordance with the Policy, the grounds on which the complaint is made including, in particular,
(1) the manner in which the domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights”.
The Complainant does not prove that it is the owner of a GOSTRF trademark. He just refers to the disputed domain name <gostrf.com> and explains that it has been “stolen” He does not claim any right on a registered trademark and does not argue on any possibility to claim a right on a non-registered trademark in Russia. In fact a non-registered trademark is not protected in Russia.
|