WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Imax Corporation v. Imaxcinemas.com c/o Nameview
Inc.
Whois Identity Shield/ “Imax Corporation”
Case No. D2010-0182
1. The Parties

Complainant is Imax Corporation of Ontario, Canada, represented by Kilpatrick Stockton

LLP, United States of America.

Respondent is Imaxcinemas.com c/o Nameview Inc. Whois Identity Shield/ “Imax

Corporation” of St. Michael, Barbados.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <imaxcinemas.com> is registered with Nameview, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center”)
on February 9, 2010. On February 9, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Nameview,
Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On
February 15, 2010, Nameview Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification
response advising that the registrant and the contact details for the disputed domain name
appear to match those of Complainant. The Center notified Complainant of the registrar
verification response and Complainant confirmed that Complainant is not in actual
control of the domain name at issue. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the
formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
“Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified
Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 25, 2010. In
accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 17,
2010. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified
Respondent's default on March 18, 2010.

The Center appointed Manoel J. Pereira dos Santos as the sole panelist in this matter on
March 24, 2010. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has
submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and
Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph
7.

4. Factual Background

The trademark upon which the Complaint is based is IMAX. According to the
documentary evidence and contentions submitted, Complainant owns a number of
trademark registrations for the IMAX mark in different countries, including the United
States Registrations Nos. 0942747, issued on September 12, 1972; 1283679, issued on
June 26, 1984; 2121078, issued on December 16, 1997; 2270681, issued on August 17,
1999; and 2426984, issued on February 6, 2001, as well as for combinations of the word
“IMAX”, for a variety of motion picture and theatre services.

According to the documentary evidence and contentions submitted, since 1969

Complainant has used the IMAX mark to identify its characteristic theatres, motion
picture equipment, and related goods and services. Complainant currently operates
directly or indirectly over 400 theatres in 44 countries throughout the world, and the
IMAX brand is identifiable worldwide with Complainant's motion and theatre services.

According to the documentary evidence and contentions submitted, since at least January,
1998 Complainant has used the IMAX marks online at the Internet site located at
“www.imax.com”.

Pursuant to the documentary evidence, the domain name <imaxcinemas.com> was

registered with Nameview, Inc. on August 29, 2005.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the IMAX
mark because it adopts the IMAX mark exactly and in its entirety, differing only by
adding a non-distinguishing generic term that describes the very services for which the
IMAX mark is known.

Complainant further contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests
regarding the disputed domain name because (i) in view of Complainant's IMAX
trademark registrations having been issued long before Respondent registered the
<imaxcinemas.com> domain name, Respondent is charged with constructive knowledge
of them; and (ii) Complainant has found no evidence that Respondent has ever used
(other than Respondent's domain name registration) the trademark or trade name
<imaxcinemas.com> or been commonly known as “imaxcinemas.com” or anything
similar.

Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain
name in bad faith because (i) Respondent, prior to its adoption and use of the domain
name <imaxcinemas.com>, was aware that Complainant was the owner of the IMAX
mark in view of the widespread and long-standing advertising and marketing of goods
and services under the IMAX names and marks around the world, including on-line, (ii)
Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed
domain name at issue, but is rather using the domain name at issue to operate a sponsored
results, or “pay-per-click,” site to which it drives Internet traffic with the intent to derive
profits, (iii) Respondent is intentionally seeking consumers who are searching for
information about IMAX cinemas and is relying on consumer confusion to profit from
the fact consumers will intuitively type in Complainant's mark, (iv) Respondent
attempted to attract for commercial gain internet users to its site by creating a likelihood
of confusion with the Complainant's IMAX mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or
endorsement of the Respondent's website, and (v) Respondent's homepage also offers to
sell the disputed domain name by displaying an offer.