Chat rulet russia
The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center ruszia ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. On October 8,the Center transmitted by to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. Respondent is nay of Tver, Russian Federation.
Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4 a of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: i the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; ii Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and iii the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant maintains that the Chatroulette service has become well known on of its popularity and high-profile reputation internationally with fans, the media and competitors, and that as a result it is one of the most popular video chat russsia in the world.
You will able to chat with beautiful Russian girls and ladies on this site too.
There are many online Russian females and males on the site. WIPO Overview 3. You are going to talk to russian strangers and meet new people russiz this country. The Center appointed Georges Nahitchevansky as the sole panelist in this matter on November 7, A subsequent demand letter was sent to Respondent on July 10, See section 4.
Chatroulette Russia : Random Chat with Russian Strangers
Complainant created the Chatroulette website and service in Respondent is based in the Russia Federation. If you would like to get girls or guys from Europe, this chat platform is one of the best one for you.
The disputed domain was registered on June 14,but appears to have been acquired by Respondent in or about July Once the complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. The burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4 a of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence.
Respondent has used the disputed domain name with a website that offers online video chat services. You will also meet beautiful girls and guys from Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Belarus too. On October 9,the Registrar transmitted by to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. Georges Nahitchevansky. The Panel thus finds that Complainant succeeds under this element of the Policy.
The Panel finds that it was properly constituted.
Malayan Banking Berhad v. Domains by Proxy, Inc.
The threshold for satisfying this first element is low and generally panels have found that fully incorporating the identical mark in a disputed domain name is sufficient to meet the threshold. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 1, Identical or Confusingly Similar Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4 a i of the Policy.
If the respondent fails to come forward with evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy, the complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that the respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
If you have ever used chatroulette, Chatroulette Russia will be easy to use for you.
Chatroulette Alternative Worldwide
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, dhat the proceedings commenced on October 12, Respondent did not respond to either letter. Such use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a legitimate use and is opportunistic. Respondent did not submit any response.