ARBITRATIONANDMEDIATION CENTER

EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION
Regtime Ltd. and Legato Ltd. v. Public Interest Registry
Case No. LRO2013-0067

1. The Parties
The Objectors are Regtime Ltd. and Legato Ltd., LLC, Russian Federation, represented by
Winston & Strawn LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent/Applicant is Public Interest Registry, United States of America, represented internally.

2. The applied-for gTLD string
The applied-for gTLD string is <.орг> [xn--c1avg].

3. Procedural History
The Objection was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “WIPO Center”) on
March 13, 2013 (UTC), pursuant to the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (the “Procedure”).
In accordance with Article 9 of the Procedure, the WIPO Center completed the review of the Objection on
March 22, 2013, and determined that the Objection complies with the requirements of the Procedure and theWorld Intellectual Property Organization Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution for Existing Legal Rights
Objections (the “WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution”).
In accordance with Article 11(a) of the Procedure, the WIPO Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Objection, and the proceedings commenced on April 22, 2013. In accordance with Article 11(b) and relevant
communication provisions of the Procedure, the Response was timely filed with the WIPO Center on
May 20, 2013.
The WIPO Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the Panel in this matter on June 13, 2013. The Panel findsthat it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of
Impartiality and Independence, as required by the WIPO Center to ensure compliance with Article 13(c) of
the Procedure and Paragraph 9 of WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution.
On June 27, 2013, the Respondent filed a supplemental submission. On July 3, 2013, the Objectors filed a
response to it. These submissions of the Parties were made without a prior invitation by the Panel, aspage 2required under Article 17 of the Procedure. The Panel reviewed the supplemental submissions of the Partiesand decided to accept them and take them into account in its Expert Determination, as they dealt with certain
issues that were to some extent relevant to the dispute, and their acceptance provided the Parties with anadditional opportunity to present their case and to address issues that they considered relevant.
In view of the supplemental submissions of the Parties, on July 18, 2013, the Panel extended the deadline
for the issuance of its Expert Determination until August 12, 2013. On August 6, 2013, the Panel further
extended the deadline until August 23, 2013.

4. Factual Background
The Objector Regtime Ltd. (“Regtime”) and the Objector Legato Ltd. (“Legato”) are companies registered in
the Russian Federation. Regtime has functioned as an ICANN-accredited registrar since 2007.
Regtime was the original owner of the word trademark ОРГ, registered in the Russian Federation on
December 22, 2008, with registration number 368,116 (the “ОРГ trademark”). The ОРГ trademark is
registered for services in International Classеs 35 and 38, listed in the Russian language in the followingway:“35 - абонирование телекоммуникационных услуг для третьих лиц; агентства по импорту-экспорту;агентства по коммерческой информации; агентства рекламные; анализ себестоимости; аренда
площадей для размещения рекламы; аудит; бюро по найму; ведение автоматизированных базданных; ведение бухгалтерских книг; выписка счетов; демонстрация товаров; запись сообщений;изучение общественного мнения; изучение рынка; информация деловая; информация и советы
коммерческие потребителям; исследования в области бизнеса; исследования в области маркетинга;комплектование штата сотрудников; консультации по вопросам организации и управления бизнесом;консультации по вопросам штата сотрудников; консультации по организации бизнеса; консультациипо управлению бизнесом; консультации профессиональные в области бизнеса; макетирование
рекламы; менеджмент в области творческого бизнеса; обзоры печати; обновление рекламных
материалов; обработка текста; обслуживание секретарское; обслуживание стенографическое;организация выставок в коммерческих или рекламных целях; организация подписки на газеты [длятретьих лиц]; организация торговых ярмарок в коммерческих или рекламных целях; оформление
витрин; оценка коммерческой деятельности; оценка леса на корню; оценка шерсти; подготовка
платежных документов; поиск информации в компьютерных файлах [для третьих лиц]; поиск
поручителей; помощь в управлении бизнесом; помощь в управлении коммерческими илипромышленными предприятиями; представление товаров на всех медиасредствах с целью розничной
продажи; прогнозирование экономическое; продажа аукционная; продвижение товаров [для третьих
лиц]; прокат офисного оборудования и аппаратов; прокат рекламного времени на всех средствах
массовой информации; прокат рекламных материалов; прокат торговых автоматов; прокат
фотокопировального оборудования; публикация рекламных текстов; работы машинописные;радиореклама; расклейка афиш; распространение образцов; распространение рекламных
материалов; редактирование рекламных текстов; реклама; реклама интерактивная в компьютерной
сети; реклама почтой; реклама телевизионная; репродуцирование документов; сбор ипредоставление статистических данных; сбор информации по компьютерным базам данных;сведения о деловых операциях; систематизация информации в компьютерных базах данных;составление налоговых деклараций; составление отчетов о счетах; составление рекламных рубрик вгазете; тестирование психологическое при найме на работу; управление гостиничными делами;управление коммерческое лицензиями на товары и услуги для третьих лиц; управление процессами
обработки заказов на покупки; услуги в области общественных отношений; услуги манекенщиков длярекламы или продвижения товаров; услуги по переезду предприятий; услуги по сравнению цен;услуги снабженческие для третьих лиц [закупка и обеспечение предпринимателей товарами]; услуги
субподрядчика управление [коммерческое]; услуги телефонных ответчиков [для отсутствующих
абонентов]; фотокопирование; экспертиза деловая.

page 338 - агентства печати новостей; вещание телевизионное; вещание телевизионное кабельное; доска
сообщений электронная [телекоммуникационные службы]; информация по вопросам дистанционной
связи; маршрутизации и соединения телекоммуникационные; обеспечение дискуссионными формамив Интернете; обеспечение доступа в Интернет [услуги провайдеров]; обеспечение доступа к базам
данных; обеспечение телекоммуникационного подключения к Интернету; обеспечение
телекоммуникационными каналами, предоставляющими услуги телемагазинов; передача сообщений;передача сообщений и изображений с использованием компьютера; передача срочных объявлений;передача телеграмм; почта электронная; прокат аппаратуры для передачи сообщений; прокат
времени доступа к сетям всемирной информационной сети; прокат модемов; прокат оборудованиядля телекоммуникационной связи; прокат телефонных аппаратов; прокат факсимильных аппаратов;радиовещание; связь волоконно-оптическая; связь радиотелефонная; связь с использованием
компьютерных терминалов; связь спутниковая; связь телеграфная; связь телефонная; связь
факсимильная; служба пейджинговая [с использованием радио телефонной службы или других
средств электронной связи]; телеконференции [Интернет]; услуги абонентской телеграфной службы;услуги по предоставлению телеграфной связи; услуги голосовой почты; услуги по предоставлению
телефонной связи.”On December 13, 2010, Regtime transferred the ОРГ trademark to Legato.
The Respondent, Public Interest Registry (“PIR”), is a nonprofit corporation, registered in the State ofPennsylvania, the United States of America. It has functioned as the registry operator for the <.org> gTLD
since 2003.
On June 13, 2012, the Respondent submitted its Application number 1-910-36696 to ICANN for the <.oрг>gTLD, and is the sole applicant for this string. The Respondent has described the literal meaning of thestring as “org (организация - organization)”, and has stated the mission/purpose of the <.орг> gTLD in thefollowing terms: “The mission/purpose of the IDN gTLD is to offer the Eastern European language
community (Bosnian, Bulgarian, Belarusian, Macedonian, Russian, Serbian, and Ukrainian) a gTLD that is
an in-language and localized translation of .ORG, and to promote the mainstream adoption ofInternationalized Domain Names (IDNs). PIR wishes to extend its stewardship of .ORG to other language
communities, providing a consistent end-user experience across the IDN equivalents. PIR’s deployment of
an IDN, as a mainstream and proven registry operator, will serve as an important boost to promote theadoption of IDNs, and will signal to application developers to support IDNs, which in turn leads to a better
user experience and usability of IDNs.”
The Respondent’s application describes the benefits of the proposed gTLD as follows: “The Cyrillic IDN
gTLD’s area of specialty is in providing registrants a local language domain name for greater inclusivenessof Internet users. A goal of the Cyrillic IDN gTLD is to carry forward the reputation of .ORG as being
trustworthy, well-intentioned, valuable information, and reliable. These are the top five brand attributes of.ORG, as indicated in PIR’s annual brand research conducted in 2008-2011. PIR will operate the IDN gTLD
registry in the same exemplary manner as it does for .ORG in order to carry forward the environment
conducive to such positive brand recognition. The Cyrillic IDN gTLD will advance the goals of competition,differentiation and innovation in a number a ways. Creating a language-unique IDN gTLD for organizations
will advance competition among TLDs that currently offer domain service to community organizations.
Community organizations use .ORG today, as well as a wide selection of TLDs, ccTLDs, sTLDs. A uniquely
identifiable IDN gTLD for organizations will provide the same differentiation that organizations can achieve
today with .ORG, but within their own language. This distinction also benefits Internet users who aresearching for language specific organizations on the Internet. With each IDN gTLD that is launched, theInternet takes a big step forward in becoming truly global. English might be a popular language in the world,
but there are many people who don’t use it, or who use other languages together with it. With IDNs, theInternet will reach many more people, who previously were either completely offline, or who used the Internet
only in a limited way. The Cyrillic IDN gTLD will make the Internet more user-friendly for this language
community. Internet users will now be able to write a domain name or an URL exactly the way it is supposed
to be written - i.e. without substituting the special symbols in Latin-based languages, or without transcribing
non-Latin languages into English.”page 4On March 1, 2013, ICANN revealed its string similarity evaluation results. The <.oрг> string was notincluded in ICANN’s list of strings that may lead to public confusion. On April 11, 2013, ICANN’s
Government Advisory Council (“GAC”) issued a Communiqué in which it provided advice to the ICANN
Board of Directors concerning its objections and concerns with respect to newly-applied for strings. The
GAC raised no issue with respect to the Respondent’s application for <.oрг> gTLD. On or about April 5,
2013, ICANN announced that the Respondent’s Application had passed the initial evaluation.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Objector Regtime submits that it was established in 2000. It became an ICANN-accredited domainname registrar as of March 28, 2007. Regtime is the second Russian ICANN-accredited domain nameregistrar and the third oldest accredited registrar for .ru country code top level domain (ccTLD). The Objector
Legato was also established in 2000. The two Objectors claim that they are under common ownership andcontrol, and that Legato is the intellectual property holding company in their group of companies.
Regtime alleges that, after the transfer of the ОРГ trademark to Legato, it has continued to use thetrademark under the control of Legato. According to the Objectors, the ОРГ trademark is registered for,among other things, “telecommunications service subscription for third parties”, which allegedly includes andcovers registration of domain names and services for ensuring Internet access to online Internet resources ina wide range, including through subscription (the right of usage for a certain period of time) of second leveldomain names in the <.орг> first level root domain.
The Objectors further submit that in 2000, only ASCII domain names were available for registration in the
Russian Federation. This created difficulties for Internet users in the Russian Federation and other Russianspeaking countries, as their languages utilize the Cyrillic alphabet. Many such Internet users did notunderstand English and had difficulty operating in a Latin alphabet environment, instead of the Cyrillic one
that they were used to. There was no way to register brand names or generic words containing Cyrilliccharacters as ASCII domain names, which constrained development of the Internet in the RussianFederation. As a result, there was a strong demand in the Russian Federation and other Russian-speaking
countries for internationalized domain names (“IDN”) utilizing the Cyrillic character set.
The Objectors state that, to capitalize on the demand for fully Cyrillic domain names, Regtime licensed idns.net’s technology in order to provide a privately offered fully Cyrillic product with both the second level
and the top-level sections in Cyrillic, described by the Objectors as the “ОРГ Cyrillic IDN Product”. Because
Regtime was not an ICANN-accredited registry operator like the Respondent, it could not create a Cyrillic
version of an existing TLD, so its product would not be in the ICANN root and would only resolve if theInternet user downloaded a browser plug-in (known as “i-client”) that enabled the browser to resolve
Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic product, or the Internet user’s ISP applied a patch to its system which would enable
the Internet user’s browser to resolve Regtime’s products.
According to the Objectors, Regtime launched its ОРГ Cyrillic product in March 2001 and issued press
releases announcing the availability of its fully Cyrillic products through a number of channels including
PRNewswire, Yahoo, and Techweb. On May 22, 2001, Regtime commenced a large public relations
campaign to publicize its ОРГ Cyrillic product in partnership with Interfax, the leading Russian International
Information Group, which included a press conference with the leading Russian IT journalists and major
television stations, as well as television ads on the major Russian National channels. The total expenditure
by Regtime for this campaign was approximately USD 60,000. As a result, Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic productreceived significant subsequent media attention, including by the BBC.
The Objectors state that Regtime continued to advertise and sell its ОРГ Cyrillic product directly through its
Regtime.net and Webname.ru websites and through a large reseller network in all major cities of the RussianFederation. The resellers were actively involved in distributing the i-client plug-ins and patching their own

page 5
DNS servers so that Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic products would resolve. The reseller agreements required that
resellers identify on their websites and in their user agreements with purchasers of Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic
products that these products were not domain names that operated in the ICANN root, but rather were
products created by Regtime and that purchasers needed to download plug-in software for these Cyrillic
products to work.
According to the Objectors, Regtime has since 2001 sold its ОРГ Cyrillic products to approximately 30,000
unique customers, including many prominent clients inside and outside of the Russian Federation. As aresult, Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic products continued to enjoy significant media coverage including fromprominent sources such as PCWeek and Computer World. This coverage publicized Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic
products and the fact that they were private commercial products offered by Regtime, and that Regtime was
the exclusive source of the ОРГ Cyrillic products. Regtime also developed strategic partnerships to ensure
distribution of its plugin software and resolution of its ОРГ Cyrillic product. Regtime partnered with thelargest Internet café chain in the Russian Federation, the Café Max, to ensure that its ОРГ Cyrillic products
resolved on all computers in this chain. Regtime also partnered with numerous ISPs such as Samara
Internet who patched their servers to ensure that Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic products resolved for all of theircustomers. As a result of these activities, over 200,000 of Regtime’s plug-ins were downloaded.
The Objectors submit that the Respondent has been the registry operator for the <.org> gTLD since
January 2003, almost three years after Regtime began selling and marketing its ОРГ Cyrillic products, andthat the Respondent has brought to the market its own Cyrillic IDNs in February 2011, over 10 years after
Regtime began selling and marketing its ОРГ Cyrillic products. Unlike Regtime’s fully Cyrillic ОРГ products,
Respondent’s Cyrillic IDNs only use the Cyrillic script in the second level of Respondent’s ASCII <.org> TLD.
According to the Objectors, the Respondent’s current IDNs are inferior to Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic products inthat they require Internet users to switch character sets in order to type in a single IDN domain, and do not
fully meet the needs of Russian-speaking Internet users.
B. Respondent
The Respondent describes itself as a public charity dedicated to serving the public interest by strengthening
the safety and integrity of the Internet, improving access to technology and expanding into underserved
markets.
The Respondent submits that the <.org> gTLD was created in 1984 and is one of the Internet's original top
level domains (TLDs), along with <.com>, <.net>, <.gov>, <.edu> and <.mil>. Although it is open andunrestricted, <.org> soon became the domain of choice for organizations dedicated to serving the public
interest. From small, local groups to huge, global foundations, a diverse range of noncommercialorganizations use <.org> to advance their missions. <.org> was originally operated by Verisign, Inc.
(“Verisign”). However, in the spring of 2002, ICANN authorized and issued a Request for Proposals to
succeed Verisign as the operator of the <.org> registry. Eleven proposals were received and carefully
evaluated, including that of the Internet Society (“ISOC”), who had by then formed the Respondent for the
express purpose of operating <.org> in a manner that would serve the needs of global organizations and“facilitate and support the continuing evolution of the Internet as a research, education and communication
infrastructure, and to stimulate the involvement of the non-profit community, and others, in the continuing
growth and evolution of the Internet”.
The Respondent further refers to IANA’s “Report on Redelegation of the .org Top-Level Domain”, whichcontains the statement that the Internet Society was formed in 1992 and is a professional membershipsociety with more than 150 organizational and 11,000 individual members in over 182 countries. Thus, theInternet Society is a long-established organization that is particularly knowledgeable about the needs of theorganizations for which the <.org> top-level domain was intended. By establishing the Respondent as a
subsidiary to serve as the successor operator of <.org>, the Internet Society has created a structure that canoperate the <.org> TLD in a manner that will be sensitive to the needs of its intended users while allowing
the Respondent to focus on the operation of <.org> by insulating it from the possibly distracting effects of

page 6
pursuing the Internet Society's broader mission. The Respondent asserts that it is not and has never been
an affiliate of Verisign.
On January 25, 2003, Verisign transferred all of the then existing 2.6 million <.org> domain names to the
Respondent. Currently, there are approximately 10.1 million registered <.org> domain names.
The Respondent contends that it has used a stylized version of .ORG as a trademark in commerce since
January of 2003 – some four and one-half years prior to the effective date of the ОРГ trademark. Presently
the Respondent has three U.S. trademarks that contain “.ORG” and are used as its logos. Unlike the ОРГtrademark, the class of services to which the Respondent’s trademark is registered includes domain nameregistry services, namely, coordinating the registration of domain names for identification of users andInternet protocol addresses on the Internet; providing an on-line computer database in the field of domainname registration information, and domain name monitoring services.

6. Discussion and Findings
The Response is valid and should be upheld for the following reasons:
The potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the Applicant/Respondent does not:(i) take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the Objector’s ОРГ trademark; and(ii) does not unjustifiably impair the distinctive character or the reputation of the Objector’s ОРГ trademark;and(iii) does not otherwise create an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the
Objector’s ОРГ trademark.
The Panel’s detailed findings are described below.
The Objectors’ rights in the ОРГ trademark
Due to the fact that the present Objection is based on trademark rights, the first issue that the Panel has todiscuss and make a determination on is the nature and scope of the Objectors’ rights in the ОРГ trademark.
Under Article 2(e)(ii) of the Procedure, an existing legal rights objection is based on the contention that thestring comprising the potential new gTLD infringes the existing legal rights of the objector that are recognized
or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. Under
Section 3.2.2.2 of Module 3 of the ICANN’s gTLD Applicant Guidebook, “A rightsholder has standing to file alegal rights objection. The source and documentation of the existing legal rights the objector is claiming(which may include either registered or unregistered trademarks) are infringed by the applied-for gTLD must
be included in the filing”.
The ОРГ trademark is registered for the territory of the Russian Federation, so it is governed by the laws of1
this jurisdiction. Under Article 1477(1) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation , “An exclusive right1

An unofficial translation of Part IV of the Russian Civil Code is provided on the official website of the Russian Federal Service forIntellectual Property (ROSPATENT)1 at http://www.rupto.ru/rupto/portal/883567fd-fbd2-11e0-e807-8e000200001f?lang=en. As
specified there, “The English translation of the Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, prepared by the specialists of
Rospatent, is an unofficial one intended to inform the international community, in particular, multilateral organizations, foreign IP offices,
and also professionals dealing with the issues of protection and enforcement of IP rights both in the country and abroad”.

page 7certified by a trademark certificate (Article 1481) shall be recognized to a trademark, i.e., to a sign capable ofindividualizing of goods of legal entities or individual entrepreneurs”. Under Article 1480 of the same Code,“Official registration of a trademark shall be effected by the federal executive authority for intellectual
property in the State Register of Trademarks and Service Marks of the Russian Federation (State Register ofTrademarks) by the procedure provided by Articles 1503 and 1505 of the present Code”. Article 1481 of thesame Code specifies that “A trademark certificate shall be issued for a trademark registered in the State
Register of Trademarks”. Under Article 1490(1) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, “A contract for
the alienation of the exclusive right to a trademark, a license contract, and also other contracts by means ofwhich disposition of the exclusive right to a trademark is exercised shall be made in a written form and are
subject to official registration by the federal executive authority for intellectual property”.
Thus, the Objectors bear the burden of proof that they have trademark rights in the ОРГ trademark that
support the Objection, and this burden of proof may be met through the submission of official documents forthe registration of the trademark or for the registration of other exclusive rights in the same trademark, issued
by the competent authorities of the Russian Federation.
The Objectors have provided information that the owner of the ОРГ trademark at the time of filing of the
Objection is the Objector Legato. The trademark rights of Legato are supported by the evidence submittedwith the Objection. The Objector Regtime alleges that it uses the ОРГ trademark under the control ofLegato, and does not provide written evidence that it has ownership rights in the same trademark. The
official certificate for registration of the ОРГ trademark, submitted by the Objectors, does not certify any
rights of Regtime in the same trademark, be it as a licensee or otherwise. The Objectors have not submitted
any other written evidence which establishes any right of the Objector Regtime in the ОРГ trademark. The
allegation that Regtime uses the ОРГ trademark under the control of Legato is not supported by any written
evidence either, and neither do the Objectors allege the existence of a written agreement between them inthis regard. In the absence of such evidence, the Panel is not satisfied on the present record that the coobjector Regtime has trademark rights in the ОРГ trademark.
The Objectors and the Respondent are in disagreement as to the scope of services for which the ОРГtrademark is registered. According to the Objectors, one of these services is “telecommunications service
subscription for third parties” in International Class 35, which the Objectors allege covers registration of
domain names and services for insuring Internet access to online Internet resources in a wide range,
including through subscription (the right of usage for a certain period of time) of second level domain namesin the ОРГ first level root domain. In support of their statement, the Objectors have submitted a clarifying
letter from Glint Agency, LLC, which identifies this service with Basic No. 350094.
The Panel notes that the letter from Glint Agency, LLC, also refers to one of the services in Internationalclass 38, for which the ОРГ trademark is registered as well – the service “providing telecommunications
connections to a global computer network”. Objectors have not referred to this service in the Objection, but
the Panel will discuss its relevance as well, as it is indeed one of the services for which the ОРГ trademark is
registered.
The Respondent maintains that the services for which the ОРГ trademark is registered do not include theregistration of domain names as a registry service. The Respondent submits that neither Glint Agency,
LLC’s letter, nor its website provide authoritative support for the allegations of the Objectors in relation to thescope of protection of the ОРГ trademark. The Federal Service for Intellectual Property (a.k.a. “Rospatent”)
under the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation is responsible for controlling andsupervising legal protection of intellectual property within the Russian Federation, including trademarks.
The service translated by the Objectors in English as “telecommunications service subscription for third
parties”, is described in the original Russian version of the registration certificate for the ОРГ trademark asth“абонирование телекоммуникационных услуг для третьих лиц”. The Panel has reviewed the 9 editionof the Nice Classification (which entered into force on January 1, 2007 and was valid for the territory of theRussian Federation when the ОРГ trademark was applied for and registered), as available in both English
and Russian languages on the official website of the Russian Federal Institute of Industrial Property

page 82

(Rospatent). In this version of the Nice Classification, the service “абонирование телекоммуникационных
услуг для третьих лиц” with Basic No. 350094, is equivalent to “arranging subscriptions totelecommunication services for others”. This is confirmed by the legal opinion of Glint Agency, LLC,
submitted by the Objectors as Annex 3 to the Objection, where the service is referred to with the same Basic
number and is translated in English with the same words. Taking this into account, the Panel finds that theproper English translation of the service “абонирование телекоммуникационных услуг для третьих лиц”,
for which the ОРГ trademark is registered, is “arranging subscriptions to telecommunication services forothers”.
The Respondent has applied to act as the registry operator for <.орг> gTLD. The role of a domain name3
registry is defined in the ICANN’s Glossary in the following terms: “The ‘Registry’ is the authoritative,
master database of all domain names registered in each Top Level Domain. The registry operator keeps themaster database and also generates the ‘zone file’ which allows computers to route Internet traffic to andfrom top-level domains anywhere in the world. Internet users don't interact directly with the registry operator;
users can register names in TLDs including .biz, .com, .info, .net, .name, .org by using an ICANN-Accredited
Registrar.”
The comparison between the service “arranging subscriptions to telecommunication services for others” andthe above description of the role of the domain name registry shows that they are dissimilar. The inclusion of
the word “arranging” in the service “arranging subscriptions to telecommunication services for others” showsthat this is the service provided by an intermediary or an agent whose task is to connect the providers andthe consumers of telecommunication services and to facilitate the subscription to these services, while theprovider of the domain names registry service itself maintains the database of registered domain names.
As to the service “providing telecommunications connections to a global computer network”, referred to in theclarifying letter by Glint Agency, LLC, the Panel notes that the original Russian description of this service,included in the registration certificate for the ОРГ trademark is “обеспечение телекоммуникационного
подключения к Интернету”. The English equivalent of this service, listed with Basic No. 380037 in theversion of the Nice Classification available at the official website of Rospatent is “providing
telecommunications connections to a global computer network”. This is a telecommunication service where
the provider offers technical means for the access of its customers to the Internet and the two-way
transmission of information through a cable, mobile or wireless connection to the Internet. It is also different
from the services of a registry operator.
th

The Panel further notes that the 9 edition of the Nice Classification explicitly mentions the service“registration of domain names [legal services]”, to be included in International Class 45, and not inInternational Classes 35 or 38.
In the end the Panel finds that this case does not turn on this question. Merely for the purpose of the further
analysis of the case, the Panel will deem any trademark protection from which the Objectors may benefit toencompass domain-related services.
Is the registration and operation of the <.орг> gTLD an activity that infringes the trademark rights of
the Objectors in the ОРГ trademark?
The Objectors allege that by virtue of the ОРГ trademark, under Russian law only the trademark registration
owner has the right to provide domain name registration services and other similar services in connection
with the ОРГ trademark. The Objectors maintain that the Respondent cannot operate the <.орг> gTLD
without infringing the ОРГ trademark. According to the Objectors, the applied-for gTLD is identical to the2

As described on its official website at “http://www1.fips.ru/wps/wcm/connect/content_en/en/about_fips/“, the Russian Federal Instituteof Industrial Property (FIPS) is a nonprofit research organization in a form of a federal government budgetary institution. The NiceClassification is available on the same website at “http://www1.fips.ru/wps/portal/IPC/MKTU9_RTF/” .
3

Publicly available at “http://www.icann.org/en/about/learning/glossary”.

page 9ОРГ trademark. The only difference between them is the dot, which is purely functional in nature. WIPO
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Panels have consistently found that the presenceor absence of dots in a domain name is typically irrelevant to the consideration of confusing similarity
between a trademark and a domain name. The Objectors submit that it is unlikely that ICANN intended that
only trademarks beginning with a “.” would be considered identical to an applied-for string. Even if the “.” isconsidered part of the applied-for string, the applied-for string is still similar to the ОРГ trademark, in thatboth consist of the Cyrillic letters ОРГ and the “.” at the beginning of the applied-for string is the only
difference. Accordingly, the ОРГ trademark and the applied-for string are virtually identical in appearance,sound and meaning, in the sense that “ ОРГ” has no meaning in Russian, other than the source origin
meaning which has developed for Regtime’s services due to the Objectors’ efforts over the last 11 years.
The Objectors also allege that the operation of the <.орг> gTLD is included in the scope of protection of theОРГ trademark, because it covers the registration of domain names.
According to the Objectors, the Applicant’s intended use of the <.орг> gTLD would create a likelihood ofconfusion with the Objector’s ОРГ trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of thegTLD. Regtime has been the exclusive provider of its ОРГ Cyrillic products which incorporate the ОРГtrademark for over 11 years. In this period, all fully Cyrillic ОРГ products were purchased from Regtime.
According to the Objectors, if the Respondent were allowed to operate the <.орг > gTLD, and offer fully
Cyrillic domain names ending in “.орг”, this would create a likelihood of confusion with the Objectors’ ОРГ
trademark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the gTLD, because it would be likely thatdomain name registrants would be confused as to whether they were purchasing the Objector’s ОРГ Cyrillic
product or a second level domain in the Respondent’s <.орг> gTLD, especially if both were offered by thesame reseller or registrar.
The Respondent submits that the registration and use of the <.орг> gTLD does not infringe the Objectors’rights in the ОРГ trademark, because the scope of this trademark does not extend to domain name registry
services. With the exception of the dot, <.oрг> is identical in appearance to the ОРГ trademark, but it is not
identical in meaning. The Respondent has applied for the right to use <.орг> as a pointer to the globallyused and accepted root system administered by ICANN and to manage the authoritative database of all
future <.орг> top-level domain names. The Respondent further points out that “орг” is an abbreviation thatstands for “организация” or “organization” in English.
Under Article 1484(3) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, “No one has the right to use, without thepermission of the rightholder, signs similar to his trademark with respect to the goods for the individualizationof which the trademark has been registered or similar goods if such use would result in a likelihood ofconfusion”. Under Article 1477 (2) of the same Code, “The provisions of the present Code related to
trademarks shall be applied correspondingly to service marks, i.e., to signs capable of individualizing work
performed or services rendered by legal entities or individual entrepreneurs”. Taking these provisions into
account, the Panel is of the opinion that the criteria used in Article 1484(3) of the Civil Code should beapplied here in order to reach a conclusion whether the operation of the <.орг> gTLD would infringe the ОРГtrademark.
The Panel will first consider whether the <.орг> gTLD is per se identical or similar to the ОРГ trademark.
The ОРГ trademark is a word trademark and consists only of the element “орг”, written with Cyrillic letters.
The <.орг> gTLD contains a dot and the word element “орг”, written in Cyrillic letters. In the Panel’s view,the difference between the gTLD and the trademark, which consists of the inclusion of the dot in the gTLD is
not of such significance so as to render the gTLD and the trademark dissimilar. Rather, it is more likely that
Internet users will regard them as similar.
The next issue to consider is whether the services for which the <.орг> gTLD is intended to be used are
identical or similar to the services for which the ОРГ trademark is registered. The gTLD is intended to be
used for the operation of a domain name registry for the <.орг> gTLD.

page 10
The final issue to determine here is whether the use of the gTLD will result in a likelihood of confusion withthe ОРГ trademark. Under the above cited Article 1484(3) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, thelikelihood of confusion is a qualifying requirement that is assessed if the signs are identical or similar and areused for identical or similar goods or services. If the services in relation to which the <.орг> gTLD is used
are not identical or similar to the ОРГ trademark, there can be no likelihood of confusion.
In order to reach a conclusion in these matters, the Panel now finds it useful to address the eight factors
referred to under Section 3.5.2 of the Guidebook.
1. Whether the applied-for gTLD is identical or similar, including in appearance, phonetic sound, or
meaning, to the objector’s existing mark.
As discussed above, the Panel finds that the <.орг> gTLD is very similar in appearance and phonetic soundto the ОРГ trademark, the only difference between them being the addition of the dot in the gTLD.
Additionally, the <.орг> gTLD is also very similar to the <.org> gTLD, as “орг” is the Cyrillic transliteration of“org”. An exact transliteration of a sign in another script is very similar to the sign because they arephonetically identical and have an appearance of mutual exchangeability to users who use both scripts.
It is well known that the <.org> gTLD is one of the most popular gTLDs. Being widely regarded as anabbreviated form of “organization”, it has been continuously used for many years by millions of users globallyfor the registration and use of domain names in connection to different organizations, including associations,charities, environmental groups, religious institutions, schools, and cultural institutions.
As shown from the evidence provided by the Objectors themselves (see Annex 6 to the Objection), Regtime
has advertised the launch of its ОРГ Cyrillic product with the following statement:“Registration of domains in zones .ком .нет .орг in Russian starts on May 22, 2001.
On May 22, 2001 RegTime.net company starts registration and delegation of Russian names in the Internet
in zones .ком .нет and .орг.
This revolutionary technology uses the International Domain Names System, developed by i-DNS.net
International, supporting multilingual internet addresses in more than 59 different languages. This innovation
makes it possible for Internet users to register their addresses in the form of words using the Russianalphabet, ending with combinations .ком – for companies, .нет – for Internet providers, .орг – fororganizations.”
The last sentence of this statement shows that Regtime has advertised its ОРГ Cyrillic product as directed toorganizations, which coincides with the use of the <.org> gTLD, rather than distinguishing the two. The twostrings being equivalents in different alphabets, such advertising should have actually contributed Internet
users using the Cyrillic alphabet to regard Regtime’s product and <.org> as mutually interchangeable inmeaning as well as in appearance and sound. This conclusion is also supported by the press material fromthe BBC Russian Service in Annex 8 to the Objection, which states: Extensions ".ком", ".нет" and ".орг"correspond to the English ".com" - "commercial", ".net" – "network" and ".org" - "organisation" (in Russian"коммерческий", "сеть" и "организация"). The suffix ".ком" can be attributed to a commercial company,".нет" – to an Internet provider, ".орг" – to a community organization.
At the same time, there is no evidence in the case file in the form of consumer surveys that show that
consumers recognize a trademark of the Objectors in the <.орг> gTLD, rather than a Cyrillic transliteration of<.org>.
Taking all the above into account, the Panel is of the opinion that the ОРГ trademark, to the extent it may bedeemed to cover domain name registry services, would have been descriptive and non-distinctive for suchservices. As such, it forms a rather weak basis to support the present Objection.

page 11
2. Whether the objector’s acquisition and use of rights in the mark has been bona fide.
The Objectors submit that their acquisition and use of rights in the ОРГ trademark has been bona fide, as
Regtime has sold thousands of ОРГ Cyrillic products for over 12 years, and the ОРГ trademark covers
registration of domain names and services for ensuring Internet access to online Internet resources in a wide
range, including through subscription (the right of usage for a certain period of time) of second level domainnames.
According to the Respondent, the Objectors’ acquisition and use of rights in a trademark in furtherance of anunauthorized alternative system outside the globally accepted Internet root system administered by ICANN isnot bona fide because it misleads the public into believing that connection to an unauthorized alternative rootsystem is comparable to connection to the unique system of identifiers administered by ICANN. Objectors
provide a technological means that misleads the sector of the public constituting its customers into believingthat connection to an unauthorized alternate system is compatible with connection to the ICANN
administered global Internet. The Objectors could have likewise submitted an application to ICANN for<.oрг>, but chose not to do so.
The Panel notes that, as discussed above, the ОРГ trademark does not include domain name registry
services in its scope of protection. At the same time, the Objectors claim the opposite in the present
proceeding, and Regtime has advertised its ОРГ Cyrillic product as a top level domain name without
distinguishing it from the gTLDs approved by ICANN, as evident from Annex 9 to the Objection.
As discussed under item 1 above, it is well known that <.org> has long established itself as one of the mostpopular and widely used gTLDs around the world. With the introduction of its Cyrillic products to the public
in 2001, Regtime announced that its ОРГ product is directed at organizations. Regtime has thus introduced
to the public a Cyrillic equivalent of <.org>, which has become popular and attractive to the users through theefforts of others. The Objectors admit in the Objection that Regtime’s Cyrillic products are not domainnames, and Regtime began acting as an ICANN-accredited registrar only in 2007, so by that time it could nothave had any contribution to the popularity of the <.org> gTLD on the Russian market.
Taking the above into account, the Panel is inclined to accept that the conduct of the Objectors actuallyshows an attempt to secure for themselves exclusive rights in relation to domain name registry services to
the Cyrillic transliteration of the <.org> gTLD, the popularity of which domain has been established by others
without the contribution of Regtime. In the Panel’s view, such an attempt is not legitimate.
3. Whether and to what extent there is recognition in the relevant sector of the public of the sign
corresponding to the gTLD, as the mark of the objector, of the applicant [respondent] or of a third
party.
The Objectors submit that the relevant sector of the public recognizes the sign corresponding to the gTLD as
the trademark of the Objectors, and that Regtime has enjoyed significant media coverage, which identified
Regtime as the exclusive source of the ОРГ Cyrillic product. Many of Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic products werepurchased through resellers who were obligated to disclose to purchasers that the products were provided
by Regtime.
The Respondent states that where a claim is based upon allegations of trademark infringement, the burdenof proving a likelihood of confusion lies with the proponent of such claim, even when the claim is based uponan incontestable trademark registration. The relevant inquiry in ascertaining whether there is a likelihood of
public confusion is whether a consumer using the product or service represented by the mark associates themark with the source of a different product or service. Any analysis of whether the relevant sector of the
public recognizes a given trademark as representing a given source demands an analysis of the type of
goods and services offered under the trademark. If the goods are totally unrelated, there can be no
infringement because confusion is unlikely. According to the Respondent, the Objectors are in the businessof sublicensing software technology that permits entry into a private unauthorized alternate root zone

page 12system. Their customers interact in a software market-for-exchange that has nothing to do with domainname registry services.
The Objectors do not engage in registry services, even in an alternate Internet root. Rather, the Objectors
appear to distribute software products through resellers for operation in an alternate root. The scope of theОРГ trademark does not extend to domain name registry services.
As discussed under item 1 above, the Objectors have not submitted evidence that the ОРГ trademark has
become popular among consumers in relation to domain-related services and that consumers recognize thistrademark in the <.орг> gTLD. The Panel also finds that the Objectors’ advertising of their own products has
not contributed for said products differentiation from the <.org> gTLD. Given the widespread use of the<.org> gTLD around the world for many years, it can be accepted to be known to and popular among mostInternet users. Therefore, the Panel is not convinced than the average consumer using the Cyrillic alphabet
would recognize the ОРГ trademark in the <.орг> gTLD. Rather, it is much more likely that consumers
would understand it as the Cyrillic transliteration of the <.org> gTLD.
4. Applicant’s [respondent’s] intent in applying for the gTLD, including whether the applicant[respondent], at the time of application for the gTLD, had knowledge of the objector’s mark, or could
not have reasonably been unaware of that mark, and including whether the applicant [respondent]
has engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby it applied for or operates TLDs or registrations in TLDs
which are identical or confusingly similar to the marks of others.
The Objectors allege that the Respondent had bad-faith intent in applying for the <.орг> gTLD, and that the
Respondent had knowledge of the ОРГ trademark at the time of its application for the gTLD. The Objectors
submit that the Respondent should not be allowed to usurp their nationally-protected rights and destroy the
results of their extensive efforts over the last 11 years.
The Respondent rejects the allegations of the Objectors of bad-faith intent in the application for the <.орг>gTLD. It submits that it has filed its application for <.орг> gTLD, with the express intent to extend its
stewardship of <.org> gTLD to the Cyrillic language community name and promote the mainstream adoptionof IDNs. At the time the Respondent applied for the <.орг> gTLD (and until it received service of the
Objection), the Respondent was not aware of the ОРГ trademark. The subject matter category of goods andservices to which the ОРГ trademark belongs does not expressly include domain name registry services.
The Objectors’ submission of a letter from Dr. Shahram Soboutipour, a former PIR Advisory Council
member, does not support their assertion that the Respondent has acted in bad faith in applying for <.орг>.
Mr. Soboutipour’s letter states only that he was “personally aware” of IDN “private party products”, such as
those sold by the Objectors, and “believes some others on the Board were also aware” of such products.
The Respondent submits that nothing in Mr. Soboutipour’s letter can fairly be read to support the Objectors’
accusation that the Respondent has acted in bad faith by applying for the <.орг> gTLD.
The Respondent has submitted evidence that it has administered the <.org> registry since 2003. As a resultof this use, the Respondent has become known as the provider of domain name registry services for thisgTLD. In its application for the delegation of the <.орг> gTLD, the Respondent has clearly explained its
intent to offer it to Internet users as a Cyrillic transliteration of <.org> gTLD.
In light of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Panel is of the opinion that the
Respondent had a bona fide intent in applying for the <.орг> gTLD.
5. Whether and to what extent the applicant [respondent] has used, or has made demonstrable
preparations to use, the sign corresponding to the gTLD in connection with a bona fide offering ofgoods or services or a bona fide provision of information in a way that does not interfere with thelegitimate exercise by the objector of its mark rights.
The Objectors submit that the Respondent has not used ОРГ and has not made demonstrable preparations
to use ОРГ in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a bona fide provision ofpage 13
information in a way that does not interfere with the legitimate exercise by the Objectors of their rights in theОРГ trademark. If the Respondent is granted the <.орг> gTLD and it begins providing services under it, it is
not clear what would happen to owners of Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic products. If a domain name is registered in
the <.орг> gTLD that is identical to an ОРГ Cyrillic product of Regtime, it is not certain which of them would
resolve and resolve consistently. The Objectors submit that Regtime has had to stop selling new ОРГ
Cyrillic products as of the day ICANN announced that the Respondent had applied for the <.орг> gTLD forfear that Regtime would not be able to provide the proposed services if the Respondent’s application were tobe approved.
The Respondent submits that its application was the culmination of a sustained and focused effort to better
understand and serve the Cyrillic community. In 2008, the Respondent conducted focus group meetings in
Moscow to understand the needs of the community and the receptiveness to IDNs. In 2011, it launched a
Cyrillic second-level domain name using the <.org> gTLD. Together with its contracted registry backend
service provider, the Respondent has devoted countless resources to develop the relevant IDN tables,
ensure operational readiness, and prescribe effective and efficient policies and procedures aimed atensuring that <.орг> will operate in the same exemplary manner that <.org> does today.
The Respondent further refers to the allegation of the Objectors that they had to stop selling new ОРГ Cyrillic
products because they feared they would not be able to provide their services if an authorized <.орг> gTLD
is established. According to the Respondent, the Objectors’ assertion that they were forced to stop selling
their products as of the date ICANN announced that the Respondent had applied for <.oрг> “for fear that it
will not be able to provide promised services, if Applicant’s application is approved” is irrelevant. The
cessation of business based upon the fear of the occurrence of some future event is not fairly attributable toanyone other than the Objectors. The Respondent submits that the Objectors have submitted no evidence
that their software products, which operate in an alternative root, “may not resolve consistently” if ICANN
approves and delegates the <.oрг> gTLD.
The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the sign
corresponding to the gTLD in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services in a way that does notinterfere with the exercise by the Objectors of their trademark rights. The application for this gTLD includes
the payment of a significant evaluation fee to ICANN and requires the availability of significant technical,
operational and financial resources. The Respondent has applied for this gTLD as a Cyrillic transliteration of<.орг> gTLD, and as found under item 4 above, it has made its application in good faith.
Whether the operation of the <.орг> gTLD would actually interfere with the operation by the Objector
Regtime of its services is a technical issue that is beyond the scope of the present proceeding and for which
the Objectors have submitted no evidence. Nevertheless, given that Regtime has adopted a business modelthat is alleged to deviate from the standards and policies of ICANN for a uniform root and has chosen not toapply for the <.орг> gTLD itself, the Panel does not find that the operation by the Respondent of the <.орг>gTLD in compliance with the standards of ICANN could represent an activity that could be regarded asillegitimate vis-a-vis Regtime. It should also be noted in this regard that the Respondent has offered toalleviate the concerns of Objectors and their customers, and has offered to make available to the users ofRegtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic products identical registrations in the new <.орг> gTLD for the first year at no charge
to the registrar of the domain names, subject to applicable ICANN requirements.
6. Whether the applicant [respondent] has marks or other intellectual property rights in the sign
corresponding to the gTLD, and, if so, whether any acquisition of such a right in the sign, and use of
the sign, has been bona fide, and whether the purported or likely use of the gTLD by the applicant[respondent] is consistent with such acquisition or use.
According to the Objectors, the Respondent has no trademark or other intellectual property rights in ОРГ,and has not used ОРГ as a trademark.
The Respondent accepts that it does not hold a ОРГ trademark, and refers to the fact that it has used a
stylized version of .ORG in commerce since January 2003, and that it is the holder of three U.S. trademarks,

page 14which contain “.org,” and their scope of protection specifically includes domain name registry services.
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b), these certificates are prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered marks,
their registration, the Respondent’s ownership of these marks and its exclusive right to use them incommerce in connection with the goods and services for which they are registered.
The Respondent has provided evidence that it is the owner of the following trademarks containing “.org”:- the combined trademark “.org” with reg. No. 3,044,328, registered for the territory of the United States ofAmerica on January 17, 2006 for the following services in International Class 42: “domain name registry
services, namely, coordinating the registration of domain names for identification of users and internet
protocol addresses on the Internet; providing an online computer database in the field of domain nameregistration information, and domain name monitoring services.” This trademark was first used in commerce
on January 3, 2003;- the combined trademark “.org >> advance your mission” with reg. No.3,471,789, registered for the territoryof the United States of America on July 22, 2008 for the following services in International Class 45: “domainname registry services, namely, coordinating the registration of domain names for identification of users andinternet protocol addresses on the Internet; providing an online computer database in the field of domainname registration information, and domain name monitoring services.” This trademark was first used incommerce on January 17, 2008; and- the combined trademark “.org>” with reg. No. 3,471,790, registered for the territory of the United States ofAmerica on July 22, 2008 for the following services in International Class 45: “domain name registry
services, namely, coordinating the registration of domain names for identification of users and internet
protocol addresses on the Internet; providing an online computer database in the field of domain nameregistration information, and domain name monitoring services.” This trademark was first used in commerce
on January 17, 2008.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has trademark rights for domain name registry services inthe sign .ORG that, as discussed under item 1 above, is similar to the <.орг> gTLD.
The Panel finds that the <.орг> gTLD is likely to be regarded as the Cyrillic transliteration of the <.org>
gTLD. The <.org> gTLD has been operated in good faith by the Respondent since 2003. In light of this, thePanel is of the opinion that the offer by the Respondent to the public of the <.орг> gTLD would be consistent
with the Respondent’s offering of services under the <.org> gTLD.
7. Whether and to what extent the applicant [respondent] has been commonly known by the sign
corresponding to the gTLD, and if so, whether any purported or likely use of the gTLD by theapplicant [respondent] is consistent therewith and bona fide.
The Objectors submit that the Respondent has not been commonly known by ОРГ, and no purported or
likely use of the <.орг> gTLD by the Respondent can be bona fide. The Respondent has never offered fully
Cyrillic IDNs. The Objectors further state that the Respondent will likely argue that it is commonly known as“.org” by virtue of its long history as registry operator for the <.org> gTLD and because <.орг > is simply the
Cyrillic transliteration of <.org> as it states in its application for the <.орг> gTLD. However, according to the
Objectors, <.org> is not the same as ОРГ. <.org> is an ASCII TLD which is commonly thought to stand for“organization”. <.орг> is completely different, as it is in Cyrillic as opposed to Latin, and because “ОРГ” has
no meaning in Russian and is not commonly thought to stand for anything other than the Objectors’ services.
There is no evidence that any Internet user would assume that a <.орг> Cyrillic IDN is the same as a <.org>
gTLD or is even operated by the same registry operator. If <.орг> is a transliteration of <.org>, it would failthe String Confusion Evaluation criteria as set forth in Section 2 of the Guidebook. ICANN has published its
string similarity review on February 24, 2013, and <.org> and <.орг> were found not to be in contention, so
the two are not equivalents of each other.

page 15
The Respondent contends that it uses its .ORG trademark as its primary company logo. From the time it
began operating the<.org> gTLD registry in 2003 to the present, the Respondent has successfully used its
trademarks, including those containing “.ORG” for the purpose of identifying the <.org> gTLD as a trusted
Internet platform. The Respondent’s acquisition of a Cyrillic <.org> gTLD in the ICANN root is fully
consistent with its past and intended future use. The Objectors’ argument that “ОРГ has no meaning in
Russian” is incorrect. The Cyrillic letters “ОРГ” are the first three letters of the Russian word “организация”,
which means “organization”. The Objectors’ argument that ICANN’s contention set results, which revealed
that <.орг> was not in contention with any other applied-for gTLD is wrong as well, as a string contention
occurs when there are “two or more applicants” for an identical or similar string.
The Panel takes into account that <.org> gTLD has been operated in good faith by the Respondent
since 2003 and that the Respondent has used its “.ORG” trademark for domain name registry services
since 2003. In view of this, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent has become commonly known
as a service provider for the <.org> gTLD and has rights and legitimate interests in respect of it. The Panelfinds that “.org” is a sign that is very similar to and corresponds to “.орг”, as the only difference between
them is that they are written in different alphabets and the latter is likely to be regarded as the Cyrillictransliteration of <.org>, as more fully discussed above. Contrary to the Objectors’ allegation that <.орг> isnot the same as <.org>, as “орг” has no meaning in Russian, the Panel agrees with the Respondent that“орг” is a shortened form of “организация” or “organization” in English, and this has been confirmed by theevidence submitted by the Objectors in Annexes 6 and 8 to the Objection.
In view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has been commonly known by a sign
corresponding to the <.орг> gTLD, and that the purported or likely use of the <.орг> gTLD is consistent
therewith and bona fide.
8. Whether the applicant’s [respondent’s] intended use of the gTLD would create a likelihood ofconfusion with the objector’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of thegTLD.
According to the Objectors, the Respondent’s intended use of the <.орг> gTLD would create a likelihood ofconfusion with the ОРГ trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the gTLD,
because it would be likely that domain name registrants would be confused as to whether they werepurchasing Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic product or a second level domain in the Respondent’s <.орг> gTLD,
especially if both were offered by the same reseller or registrar. The Objectors also allege that the use of the<.орг> gTLD would create confusion in the marketplace with regard to all existing users of the Objectors’ОРГ Cyrillic product, as it would be possible that two separate entities could register the same Cyrillic string
as Objector’s ОРГ Cyrillic product and a second level domain in the Respondent’s <.орг> gTLD. If that were
to happen, it would not be clear whether Objector’s ОРГ Cyrillic product or the identical second level domainname in the Respondent’s <.орг> gTLD would resolve, which could create further confusion and harm thethousands of consumers who have already purchased Regtime’s ОРГ Cyrillic product.
According to the Respondent, the raison d'être for trademark protection is to avoid public confusion by
accurately identifying the source of the goods or services offered in connection with the mark. The purposeof trademarks has remained constant and limited - identification of the manufacturer or sponsor of a good or
the provider of a service. The Respondent further submits that, since <.oрг> does not convey source
information, approval of the Respondent’s application and delegation of the <.oрг> gTLD would not create alikelihood of confusion by suggesting that the Objectors are the source, sponsors, affiliates, or otherwise
endorse the gTLD.
As discussed under item 1 above, even if domain name registry services had been within the scope ofprotection of the trademark, the Panel is of the opinion that the trademark would have been descriptive andnon-distinctive in relation to them. Moreover, consumers are more likely to understand the Objectors’ ОРГ
trademark as the Cyrillic transliteration of the <.org> gTLD, an understanding for which the Objectors mayneed to bear the consequences.

page 16
7. Decision
For the above reasons, the Objection is rejected.

[signed]Assen Alexiev
Sole Panel Expert
Date: August 23, 2013