ARBITRATIONANDMEDIATION CENTER

EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION
AC Webconnecting Holding B.V. v. Dot Agency LimitedCase No. LRO2013-0007

1. The Parties
The Objector/Complainant is AC Webconnecting Holding B.V. of Rotterdam, The Netherlands, represented
by Merk-Echt B.V., The Netherlands.
The Applicant/Respondent is Dot Agency Limited, of Gibraltar, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland represented by Famous Four Media Limited, of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland.

2. The applied-for gTLD string
The applied-for gTLD string is <.cam>.

3. Procedural History
The Legal Rights Objection (“Objection”) was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the“WIPO Center”) on March 12, 2013 pursuant to the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (the“Procedure”).
In accordance with Article 9 of the Procedure, the WIPO Center has completed the review of the Objection
on March 25, 2013 and has determined that the Objection complies with the requirements of the Procedureand the World Intellectual Property Organization Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution for Existing Legal
Rights Objections (the “WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution”).
The WIPO Center has received a proposal from the Respondent to consolidate the LRO Objections
LRO2013-0006 and LRO2013-0007 on April 23, 2013. The Objector has indicated opposition to aspects ofthe consolidation proposal. In accordance with Article 12 of the Procedure and Paragraph 7(d) of the
WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution, the WIPO Center has not made a decision to consolidate
LRO2013-0006 and LRO2013-0007 for purposes of Article 12(b) of the Procedure.
In accordance with Article 11(a) of the Procedure, the WIPO Center formally notified the Applicant of the
Objection, and the proceedings commenced on April 16, 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 15, 2013.

page 2

The WIPO Center appointed James Bridgeman as the Panel in this matter on June 13, 2013. The Panelfinds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance andDeclaration 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.

4. Factual Background
The Objector claims rights as the controlling owner of the registrants of the following trademarks:
XLOVECAM, CTM registration number 005506241, which was registered by AC Webconnecting B.V.
of Burgermeester Knappertlaan 18d, 3117 BA Schiedam, Netherlands on October 17, 2007 in class 38 for“Broadcasting, dissemination and transmission of visual images, audio information, graphics, data and otherinformation, using radio, telecommunications apparatus, electronic media or the Internet.” and International
trademark registration number 1007540 for the XLOVECAM mark also in class 38.

BOYCAM French trade mark registration number 3369260 registered by CC Media SARL, 13 La
Canebière,13001 Marseille, France on July 7, 2005 in class 41 for the following services: “Agence demodèle pour artites, exploitation de publications électroniques en ligne, production de films, productions defilms sur bande vidéo, publication de livrez et de périodiques en ligne.” (sic)On December 12, 2011, the Objector applied to register two Community Trade Marks viz.


.CAM (word); and.CAM (figurative).

On January 12, 2012, the period for acceptance of applications for new TLDs by ICANN commenced.
On May 30, 2012, the Applicant filed the application, which is the subject of the present Objection, for the
new gTLD <.CAM>.
On June 13, 2012, the applications for new gTLDs were made public by ICANN.
On December 6, 2012 the Objector’s Community Trade Mark .CAM (word) was registered with registration
number 10483501.
On December 7, 2012, the Objector’s Community Trade Mark .CAM & Design was registered withregistration number 10483618.
Both said Community Trade Marks (“CTMs”) were registered for the following services in classes 35, 38, 42
and 45:Class 35
Commercial information; payroll preparation and personnel records management; office functions inconnection with the setting up and managing of databases and the positioning, optimization, notification,
monitoring and adjustment of the findability of the websites of others using search engines; professional
consultancy in connection with business management, including in relation to e-commerce; commercial andbusiness organization; project management; secretarial and office functions relating to the claiming of
domain names; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services; the aforesaid services also
provided via electronic networks, such as the Internet; excluding the aforementioned services in the field offinancial, monetary, real estate and insurance services of any kind.

page 3
Class 38
Providing access to electronic communication networks, including the Internet; electronic data transfer;telecommunications services related to search engines, electronic mail traffic and work groups; providing
and rental of telecommunications facilities, including telecommunications apparatus, instruments andinterfaces (computer hardware), including network apparatus, instruments and interfaces; providing/leasingof access time to computer databases; providing access to the Internet; providing and leasing of accesstime to databases; leasing access time to search engines for searching, retrieving, indexing, linking andarranging data for the Internet, electronic communications networks and electronic databases; consultancy
and information regarding the aforesaid services, including provided via electronic networks, such as theInternet; excluding the aforementioned services in the field of financial, monetary, real estate and insurance
services of any kind.
Class 42
Design, development, implementation, updating and maintenance of software and software packages;
design and development of data processing equipment, computers and computer peripheral devices;computerization consultancy; services of ICT specialists, including via helpdesks; computer systems
analysis; consultancy with regard to information technology and communications technology; computer
programming; design, development, updating, maintenance, graphic design and creation of websites andgateways to websites (computer software); technical consultancy in relation to computer hardware andsoftware; webhosting; quality control regarding computers and computer peripheral devices; web design;
graphic design (product development); providing of software for search engines for websites; services of
ICT specialists aimed at ensuring the security of computers, computer software and IT infrastructures;
technical project studies in the field of computer hardware and software; consultancy and information
regarding the aforesaid services, including provided via electronic networks, such as the Internet; excluding
the aforementioned services in the field of financial, monetary, real estate and insurance services of any
kind.
Class 45
Legal services; registration of domain names, including coordination of the assignment of domain names
and address space; consultancy and information regarding the aforesaid services, including via electronic
networks, such as the Internet; excluding the aforementioned services in the field of financial, monetary, realestate and insurance services of any kind.
The Objector has also applied for the disputed new TLD <.CAM> in the present round of applications for new
gTLDs.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Objector
The Objector submits that the proposed gTLD <.CAM> is identical to the Objector’s CTM .CAM (word),registration number 10483501 and highly similar to the registered trademark CTM .CAM (fig.), registration
number 10483618.
Each of the Objector’s CTMs were filed on 12 December 2011 which is earlier in date than the Applicant’s
application for the disputed new gTLD <.CAM>.
The Objector claims that it and its affiliated companies have been extensively and widely using hundreds ofInternet domain names containing the element CAM since 2005, which have acquired the status ofprotectable trademarks through use, including (but not limited to):

<camdirect.fr>, <camdefolie.com>;<xlovecam.com>, < xlovecam.fr>, <xlovecam.de>;<livecamhot.com>, <livecam.info>, <livecam.mobil>, <livecam.org>;

page 4<camsearch.at>, <camsearch.biz>, <camsearch.tv>;<plaisircam.com>; and<xgaycam.cc>, <xgaycam.info>.

Said domain names are all in use for websites via which Internet users can chat with registered persons
with the use of a webcam. The websites to which these domain names resolve are visited by about amillion visitors/viewers and/or users per day. The Objector claims that it has made substantial investments
to build a reputation of its trademarks and websites.
In order to further extend its already widespread use of trademarks and domain names containing theelement “cam” the Objector has applied to operate the gTLD <.CAM>. The Objector’s intentions are to give
all kinds of corporations and organizations a chance to register and use domain names with the .CAM
extension.
The Objector submits that the string comprising the proposed new gTLD infringes the existing legal rights ofothers that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognizedprinciples of law and specifically that the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the Applicant would
unjustifiably impair the distinctive character or the reputation of the Objector’s mark and create animpermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the Objector’s older trademarks.
The Objector submits that such confusion is virtually a certainty because the proposed gTLD and the
Objector’s marks are identical and the intended services are identical and/or highly related.
The Objector submits that the proposed new gTLD <.CAM> is identical to the Objector’s .CAM mark from avisual, phonetic and conceptual point of view and is highly similar to the.CAM (fig). XLOVECAM and
BOYCAM marks. The acquisition and use of rights in the Objector’s marks has been bona fide and inaccordance with EU law and the laws of the EU member states, as well as the Paris Convention onprotection of trademarks.
The websites to which the domain names controlled and used by the Objector resolve are visited by an
estimated one million viewers and/or users per day. As a result of this extensive use and the success of
the websites, there is a high level of recognition on the part of the relevant public.
The Objector is not aware of the Applicant’s intentions with regard to the gTLD application and/or
preparations to use and/or a bona fide offering of goods or services by the applicant. The Objector is notaware of any intellectual property rights of the Applicant in the .CAM mark or any similar sign. Nor is the
Objector aware of any bona fide offering of goods and services in connection with the gTLD by the
Applicant. The Applicant has not been known by the sign corresponding to the gTLD.
Any such intentions or preparations cannot be bona fide, because the use of the gTLD by the Applicant
would create a likelihood of confusion with the Objector’s previously registered trademarks. Those
trademarks are of multinational effect, protected throughout the European Union, and must be respected by
ICANN and its appointed dispute resolution provider, the WIPO Center. The Applicant’s application for the
proposed gTLD must be rejected on the basis that the applied-for TLD string is identical to the Objector’s
previously registered trademark.
The Applicant was on constructive notice of the Objector’s trademark rights prior to the filing date of the TLD
application, as the registration records were publicly available in OHIM’s database. Thus the Applicant
could not have reasonably been unaware of such rights.
As stated in the Final Applicant Guidebook, Sec. 3.5.2, the Legal Rights Objection procedure is intended togive effect to a fundamental aspect of the new gTLD program, embodied in GNSO Recommendation 3:“Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable undergenerally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.”
The Objector’s legal rights in the .CAM trademark are enforceable under the European Union’s trademark

page 5
laws, and by extension the Paris Convention. These internationally recognized principles of law are
inviolate and absolute. The Applicant’s gTLD application is for an identical string, proposed to be used in
the same manner described in the Objector’s trademark registrations. Not only is there a likelihood ofconfusion, but an absolute certainty of consumer confusion. Therefore, the Legal Rights Objection must be
sustained, and the Applicant’s TLD application must be rejected.
B. Applicant
The Applicant denies that its use of the disputed proposed gTLD <.CAM> would unjustifiably impair the
distinctive character or the reputation of the Objector’s marks or otherwise create an impermissible likelihoodof confusion between the proposed <.CAM> gTLD and the Objector’s marks.
The Applicant submits that the Objector has failed to prove that it has valid existing rights in any of theasserted trademarks. The Guidebook states that legal rights objections must be based on “existing legal
rights”. Guidebook § 3.2.1.
Addressing the Objector’s CTMs, the Applicant asks this Panel to note that while the Objector applied toregister said .CAM (word) and .CAM (fig.) as Community Trade Marks on December 12, 2011, they were notin fact registered until December 6 and 7, 2012 respectively. The Applicant applied for the disputed
proposed gTLD <.CAM> > on May 30, 2012 at a time when the Objector had no existing rights in either the.CAM (word) and .CAM (fig.) marks but merely had pending applications for both.
Furthermore the Applicant submits that the Objector has not adduced any evidence that either of the
Objector’s CTMs was used in commerce before the Applicant filed its application for the proposed gTLD<.CAM> on May 30, 2012, or since. In this regard the Applicant refers to a Tineye search and a Google
reverse image search that it has annexed to the Response and submits that these searches reveal that thefigurative mark has not been used at all out of 2.6 billion images on the Internet. The only result is on the
trademark registers.
The Applicant furthermore submits that the applications for registration of the Objector’s CTMs were made in
bad faith mere weeks before ICANN opened the new gTLD application window in January 2012.
It is significant that the Objector has also applied to ICANN for the <.CAM> gTLD and in the circumstances,
the Applicant submits that the Objector’s applications to register the .CAM trademarks are a blatant attempt
to create a ground for objection in order to gain advantage in the ICANN application process and secure thegTLD for itself. Applicants were generally well aware of the gTLD application process well before December
2012 because ICANN had approved the program on June 20, 2011.
The Applicant argues that it follows that the Objector’s CTMs are vulnerable to cancellation pursuant to
Article 51(1)(b) of the Council Regulation 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark (“CTM Regulation”). “Badfaith” is a subjective factor which is determined by reference to the objective circumstances of the particularcase. In the case of Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH, Case C529/07, thecourt considered that an intention to prevent a third party from marketing a product could, in certain
circumstances, be an element of bad faith on the part of the applicant. Such would be the case if anapplicant applied for a Community Trade Mark not intending to use it but with the sole objective of preventing
a third party from entering the market. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) Panels
weighing trademark rights and domain names have long held that registering domain names undersuspicious timing to merely reserve rights is an indicator of bad faith. e.g., Bumi Plc. v. BUMIPLC, Case No.
D2011-1249 (WIPO October 21, 2011); Tiara Hotels & Resorts LLC v. John Pepin, Case No. D2009-0041(WIPO March, 10, 2009); Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Tamara Pitts, Case No. D2006-0675(WIPO August, 27, 2006); Tennessee Education Lottery Corporation v. Mark Dalton, Case No. D2003-0726(WIPO November 3, 2003); Vanguard Medica Limited v. Theo McCormick, Case No. D2000-0067(WIPO April 3, 2000).
The Applicant submits that there can be no likelihood of confusion between the disputed proposed gTLD

page 6<.CAM> and said .CAM (word) and .CAM (fig.) CTMs because the Objector cannot and will not use said
.CAM trademarks unless and until it is awarded the <.CAM> TLD by ICANN. If the Objector is not awarded
the <.CAM> TLD said registrations would be immediately vulnerable to cancellation based on non-use.
Furthermore, the Applicant disputes that the Objector’s said .CAM (word) and .CAM (fig.) CTMs are in any
event protectable under European Community law, and submits that they are highly vulnerable tocancellation proceedings under Articles 56 and 57 of the Council Regulation 207/2009 on the Community
Trade Mark (“CTM Regulation”) on the absolute grounds for refusal of registration set out in Article 7. In thisregard the Applicant submits that it is well established in Community trademark law that TLDs are genericand lack the requisite distinctiveness to be registered as Community trademarks. Citing: DeTeMedien
Deutsche Telekom Medien GmbH, Case T-117/06 where the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities considered whether the term “suchen.de” met the requirement at Article 7(1) of the CTM
Regulation. (The Court held that the elements of the sign "suchen.de" consisted of two terms that wererespectively in everyday usage (namely "suchen", meaning "to search") or which constituted a common
technical term in German (namely ".de", which was the country-code top-level domain extension forGermany). As such, neither element individually possessed distinctive character.
The Applicant submits that there is a wealth of European Community caselaw that establishes that the TLD
string is generic. Citing: Pets.com R 305/2001-3; MobiTV, Inc v Cellcast Media SARL R 1384/2008-2;
Fiesta Catering International, Inc R 330/2007-1; Jupitermedia R 211/2006-4; Learn.com Inc. R 1047/20072; RCP Amazon s.r..o v. Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS 3365 C; Getty Images (US), Inc.,
Case T-338/11; Participate.Systems, Inc. R 222/2002-1.
The Applicant submits that it is also well-settled under the trademark laws of the United States of America
that TLDs are not source indicators and thus do not function as trademarks. Citing: Image Online Design,
Inc., at 16 (“[T]he proposition that TLDs are not generally source indicators has been adopted by courts,
legal scholars, and other authorities.”); McCarthy on Trademarks § 7:17.50 (“[A] top level domain indicator
has no source indicating significance and cannot serve any trademark purpose ... [T]he TLD ‘.com’ functionsin the world of cyberspace much like the generic indicators ‘Inc.,’ ‘Co.,’ or ‘Ltd.’ placed after the name of acompany.”); Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure 5th Ed. (2007) § 1215.02 (“Generally, when atrademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark is composed, in whole or in part, of a domain
name, neither the beginning of the URL (‘http://www.’) nor the TLD have any source-indicating significance.
Instead, those designations are merely devices that every Internet site provider must use as part of its
address.”).
Of specific importance in the present case is that applications made by the Objector to register the asserted.CAM marks with the United States Patent & Trademark Office were refused by the Trademark Examiner for
failure to function as a trademark. The Examiner stated in regard to both applications:“the applied-for mark consists solely of a top-level domain name; it does not function as a service mark to
identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those of others and to indicate the source of applicant’s
services. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127; TMEP §1215.02(d).
Specifically, the applied-for would not be perceived as a service mark because they are “one of the primarymeasures used to structure the internet.” See Attachment 4 – Domain.com Blog article about TLDs.
Purchasers are accustomed to top-level domains being used merely to access internet pages and not forsource identification. Therefore, because the mark will serve only to indicate the domain name of applicant’s
website and will not separately identify applicant’s services or otherwise serve as a source indicator for
applicant’s services, registration is refused pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 3 & 45. “currently registered.”
The Applicant submits that moreover, the Objector is clearly attempting to reserve trademark rights in the.CAM marks in order to subvert the new gTLD application process for its own application so that it does nothave to proceed to auction with other applicants. The Objector’s use of the .CAM mark in the European
Community and the United States is “token use” of a term solely to reserve rights in a mark, and is not bonafide or genuine. Citing: Ansul BV vs. Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV, C-40-01 (ECJ Mar. 11, 2003) (“genuine use
must ... be understood to denote use that is not merely token, serving solely to preserve the rights conferredpage 7by the mark”); TMEP § 901.02 (noting that “use in commerce” necessary to establish rights in a mark was“the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in amark.”).
Addressing the Objections based on the abovementioned registered trademarks XLOVECAM and BOYCAM,
the Applicant submits that the Objector is not the registered owner of either registration and has failed toestablish ownership or legal rights in either mark. It has merely asserted the connection with the registeredowner but has provided no evidence of the relationship in either case.
Furthermore, even if the Objector is found to have demonstrated ownership in the XLOVECAM and
BOYCAM marks, the Applicant submits that in any event there is no similarity between the disputed
proposed gTLD <.CAM> and either mark. They are not identical and the Applicant argues that the marks arecompletely dissimilar to the disputed proposed gTLD <.CAM> in terms of appearance, phonetic sound, or
meaning. The initial, distinctive and dominant elements of the Objector’s marks are XLOVE and BOY,
respectively. They contain substantial differences in sight (extra letters) and sound (extra syllables). As tomeaning, the Objector’s marks refer to its webcam-related services and create distinct commercial
impressions.
Moreover, the Applicant submits that both the XLOVECAM trade mark and the BOYCAM trade mark areconceptually and commercially weak, and entitled to a narrow scope of protection. Also, the Objector’s
services, which are webcam services, would be very different from the Applicant’s proposed services if it isawarded the proposed gTLD, which would be domain name management services. For these reasons, even
if consumers saw the Applicant’s proposed <.CAM> gTLD as a mark, they would not be confused into
believing that its source was really the Objector. Accordingly, a proper weighing of these most important
likelihood of confusion factors in favour of the Applicant would render confusion unlikely.
The Response also addresses the Objections based on the Objector’s claimed trade mark rights in theabove listed Internet domain names that incorporate the letters “cam” as an element. The Applicant denies
that the Objector has adduced any evidence of its claimed trade mark rights in the domain names
incorporating the letters “ cam” on which it relies.
The Objector does not offer any evidence at all that its customers identify the term CAM or .CAM with
Objector as the source of any services, and merely makes an unsubstantiated assertion that hundreds ofunspecified websites are visited by one million visitors a day.
The Objector only lists 15 websites containing the term “cam”, but claims that it owns hundreds of domainnames containing that term. There is no common link between any of the websites which would establish a
trademark in the word “cam”, as there is no submitted proof that the word “cam” is used as or in a mark on
the websites hosted at these domain names. Numerous Community Trade Mark cases establish that simple
website visitor numbers are insufficient to establish trademark rights: Citing: Retail Royalty Company R
1463/2012-2 (“The applicant includes data related to the traffic on their web-site. This data is presented in
the form of a simple table, with no source indicated. The applicant also refers to sales via eBay online store,
where customers from EU are mentioned. The applicant also mentions their page on Twitter and Facebook,which supposedly also have users in Europe.”; T Hasbro UK Limited v Bob Licensing Sarl B 1 286 014(“…the evidence submitted by the opponent in order to prove the reputed character of its marks consists
solely of the extracts from the websites. The presence of the mark on the website shows nothing more thanthat the website is accessible. This is in itself not sufficient to prove reputation of the trade mark, apart for
information, advertising and promotional purposes.... Moreover, the opponent did not submit any survey on
its trade mark recognition. Moreover, no sales figures or affidavit, price lists or similar have been provided.
On the basis of the above the Office concludes that the evidence submitted by the opponent does notdemonstrate that the earlier trade mark acquired a high degree of distinctiveness through its use namely thatthe earlier mark is known by a significant part of the public concerned by that mark. Moreover, the opponent
failed to submit information on the market share held by the trade mark, the intensity, geographical extent
and duration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking in promoting it.”)page 8The Objector has not submitted any evidence that it has established any reputation by the use of CAM as atrademark, such as survey evidence, sales figures, affidavits, market share or the geographical extent of
reputation.
By contrast the Applicant refers to the results of a survey of general Internet users, commissioned by the
Applicant which has been furnished in an annex to the Response that shows that the vast majority of thosesurveyed were unable to even categorise the figurative mark as an adult website and submits that the survey
demonstrates that Internet users do not identify either the figurative mark or the word .CAM with thebusiness of the Objector.
In summary, the Applicant submits that there is no likelihood of confusion between its proposed use of the<.CAM> string as a gTLD and any of the marks relied upon by the Objector.
The Applicant submits that it is making its application for the disputed proposed gTLD <.CAM> in good faith.
In doing so the Applicant is relying on its freedom of expression rights to use terms in their generic sense for
proffered goods and services under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industry Property, theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR). As stated in its application, the Applicant intends to use .CAM in its generic sense, i.e., to refer todomain names that it will manage on the proposed .CAM domain space for website owners that wish toregister and use Internet domain names that immediately indicate to Internet users that the information orservices at the resultant website are related to devices that record images that can be stored directly,
transmitted to another location, i.e., ‘cameras’. Citing: Paris Convention Art. 6(ii); UDHR Art. 19; ICPR Art.
19(2).
The Applicant asserts that neither the Applicant nor any of its employees have been involved incybersquatting. Neither the Applicant, nor any of its affiliated entities or senior employees, have everengaged in any, let alone a pattern of, conduct applying for or operating TLDs or registrations in TLDs which
are identical or confusingly similar to the marks of others. In that regard, it is worth noting that the Applicant
has recently passed initial evaluation, and therefore it (and by extension, the individuals and other entities
involved in the application) has passed the background check run by ICANN. One of the requirements isthat the Applicant and the senior named individuals involved should not have a history of cybersquatting or acertain number of adverse UDRP cases to constitute a pattern. None of the directors, employees or affiliatesof the Applicant has ever been involved in a UDRP or other cybersquatting case. Also the Applicant and its
affiliated entities in all has made 60 applications for gTLD strings, only one of which, namely the genericstring <.MUSIC>, has been the subject of any Legal Rights Objection.
The Applicant denies any specific knowledge of the Objector’s CTMs when applying for the disputed
proposed gTLD <.CAM>, as they had not yet been registered at that time. The Applicant submits that its
proposed use of the disputed proposed gTLD <.CAM> as a generic top level domain name, would not
infringe any trademark rights. The Applicant intends to use the disputed proposed gTLD <.CAM> only in its
generic sense where necessary to list or describe the offering of .CAM domain names within the registry anddoes not intend to use the sign corresponding to the gTLD in connection with any offering of goods, services
or information. Therefore, there will be no interference with the exercise by the Objector of either of its
legitimate marks, XLOVECAM or BOYCAM, even in the unlikely event one could say that there is a likelihoodof confusion between the Applicant’s use of the disputed proposed gTLD <.CAM> and those trademarks.
Such use is permissible pursuant to Article 12 of the CTM Regulation, Article 6 of Directive 89/104/EEC andwhat is commonly known in the United States as the “fair use” defence, where courts have held that “[a]generic name is free for use by anyone when applied to the products it signifies, is often a competitivenecessity, and can be used in its generic sense notwithstanding its registration for other products” and thus“[g]enericness is a defense to a trademark infringement action.” Anne Gilson LaLonde, Gilson on
Trademarks § 2.02[1] (Matthew Bender 2012).
It is clear that pursuant to Article 12(c) of the CTM Regulation, a trademark owner must permit the use of its
marks in certain situations, and this is a valid defence even if there is some similarity between a mark andpage 9the generic use of that mark. For example, in Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co v Putsch GmbH, Case C100/02, 7 January 2004, the ECJ held: “The mere fact that there exists a likelihood of aural confusion
between a word mark registered in one Member State and an indication of geographical origin from anotherMember State is insufficient to conclude that the use of that indication in the course of trade is not inaccordance with honest practices.”
In The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy, Case C-228/03, the ECJ
held that the use of the trademark will not be in accordance with honest practices in industrial andcommercial matters if: (a) “it is done in such a manner as to give the impression that there is a commercial
connection between the third party and the trade mark owner”; (b) “it affects the value of the trade mark bytaking unfair advantage of its distinctive character or repute”; (c) “it entails the discrediting or denigration ofthat mark”; or (d) “where the third party presents its product as an imitation or replica of the product bearing
the trade mark of which it is not the owner.” Clearly none of the above apply to the proposed operation of
the proposed gTLD by the Applicant, which will display no connection whatsoever with the trademarks
XLOVECAM or BOYCAM.
Furthermore, the Objector itself in its application for <.CAM> gTLD, makes clear that it intends to use thegTLD in its generic sense to refer to domain names that are likely to host cam and camera-related
information, goods, and/or services and makes no mention of any brand-related purposes for the gTLD.
The Applicant does not intend and never intended to use the disputed proposed gTLD <.CAM> as atrademark or source identifying term, and assumed that a generic term such as .CAM which included the dot
could not be registered as a trademark. The Applicant intends to use the disputed proposed gTLD <.CAM>
only to offer domain registration services, as a registry operator, and the term .CAM is totally descriptive of
the service that will be offered. Accordingly, the Applicant had no reason or duty to search for marks similar
to the disputed proposed gTLD <.CAM>.
The Applicant submits that in the relevant sector of the public there is no recognition of the sign
corresponding to the proposed gTLD, as the mark of the Objector, of the Applicant or of any third party. The
Applicant is not intending to use the gTLD as a trademark, but would only generically use the <.CAM> gTLD
to refer to the domains within its registry. There can therefore be no confusion as to the source,sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the gTLD because Internet users will not see the use of the .TLD
as a source identifier of Objector’s or Applicant’s services, but rather as part of Internet addresses. Even if
the Panel found that Objector had valid protectable rights in the term “CAM” or marks containing ‘CAM’, thefair use defence would thus permit the use of the gTLD on the basis that it is necessary to use the word
“CAM” descriptively in the operation of the <.CAM> gTLD registry.

6. Discussion and Findings
For ease of reference in the following paragraphs the Objector’s Community Trade Mark .CAM (word)
registration number 10483501 and Community Trade Mark .CAM & Design registration number 10483618
are referred to as “the Objector’s CTMs”.
Additionally the Internet domain names <camdirect.fr>; <camdefolie>.com; <camsearch.at>;<camsearch.biz>; <camsearch.tv>; <xlovecam.com>:< xlovecam.fr>; <xlovecam.de>; <xgaycam.cc>;<xgaycam.info>.<livecamhot.com>; < livecam.info>; <livecam.mobil>; <livecam.org>; <plaisircam.com>;will be referred to collectively as the “Domain Names Relied upon by the Objector”.
In summary, and for reason given in detail below, this Panel finds that the potential use of the applied-for
gTLD by the Applicant does not:(i) take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the Objector’s registered or
unregistered trademark or service mark (“mark”); and/or

page 10(ii) unjustifiably impair the distinctive character or the reputation of the Objector’s mark; and/or(iii) otherwise create an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the
Objector’s mark.
because
there is no similarity between the proposed gTLD and the BOYCAM mark, the XLOVECAM mark or
the Domain Names Relied upon by the Objector and therefore there is no risk of confusion or association
with any of them; andwhile the proposed gTLD is identical to the Objector’s CTMs (allowing that one of the registrations is afigurative or device mark), in the context of use on the Internet generally, the “cam” element in each would
be attributed a descriptive and generic meaning; when used specifically as a gTLD extension, thecombination of the “.” (“dot”) element with the “cam” element would be understood to be what it is - a gTLD
extension string with a limited and specific technical function. The situation may well be different if the
proposed gTLD was identical to a distinctive existing mark or an existing mark that had acquired
distinctiveness through use. Such is not the case with the Objector’s Community Trade Marks in each ofwhich the dominant element is a descriptive and generic reference to webcams and cameras.
In the circumstances the Applicant’s arguments in relation to the date on which the claimed rights came into
existence is moot.
A. Threshold issue as to the Objector’s standing
Paragraph 3.2.2 of the ICANN Applicant Guidebook (Guidebook”) states that as part of the dispute
proceedings, all objections will be reviewed by a panel of experts designated by the applicable Dispute
Resolution Service Provider (DRSP) to determine whether the objector has standing to make a Legal Rights
Objection. The threshold is that the objector must be a “rightsholder”. This is repeated in Paragraph 3.2.2.2
which states “[a] rightsholder has standing to file a legal rights objection.”
There is a number of references to the fact that the “rights” relied upon by the “rightsholder” must be“existing” but these do not state what the relevant date would be on which the rights must “exist”.
Paragraph 3.2.1 of the Guidebook states that the rationales for grounds of objection are discussed in
the final report of the ICANN policy development process for new gTLDs and refers in turn for the guidanceof applicants to the Final Report of ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation, Introduction of New
Generic Top-Level Domains, 8 August 2007, Part A: Final Report, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level
Domains at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm. The Final Report at
Recommendation 3 states that “[s]trings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that arerecognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law.
Examples of these legal rights that are internationally recognized include, but are not limited to, rights
defined in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industry Property (in particular trademark rights), theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) (in particular freedom of expression rights).” (emphasis added).
Paragraph 3.2.2.2 of the Guidebook also states that “[t]he 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.” (emphasis added).
Paragraph 3.4.4 states “There will be one expert, or, if all parties agree, three experts with relevant
experience in intellectual property rights disputes in proceedings involving an existing legal rights objection.”(emphasis added).
Paragraph 3.5.2 of the Guidelines repeats Recommendation 3 of the GNSO and states that In thepage 11case where the objection is based on trademark rights, the panel will consider the following non-exclusive
factors: 1. Whether the applied-for gTLD is identical or similar, including in appearance, phonetic sound, or
meaning, to the objector’s existing mark.” (emphasis added).
If an objector has already accrued rights either through ownership of a registered trademark or at common
law through use of a mark, on the date when the application window opened, then by definition it has
standing.
A threshold issue arises in the present case because the Applicant has argued that the Objector does nothave standing in relation to any of the marks.
With reference to the Objector’s CTMs, the Applicant argues that the Objector’s claimed rights did not exist
and were merely inchoate until December 6 and 7, 2012 and furthermore are not bona fide.
Having considered the evidence, this Panel finds that the Objector has made no commercial use, or at mosthas made notional use, of the .CAM (word) or .CAM (fig.) marks. The Objector applied to register thesemarks as Community Trade Marks on December 12, 2011 but they were not registered until December 6 and7, 2012 respectively.
A number of dates suggest themselves as the possible relevant date for deciding whether the Objector is a“rightsholder” that has accrued “existing” rights to have standing to bring this Objection:the date on which common law rights accrued to the Objector through use of the .CAM (word) or .CAM
(fig.) marks in the course of trade – this Panel finds that on the evidence there has not been sufficient use by
the Objector of either the .CAM (word) or .CAM (fig.) marks to acquire any protection at common law;
December 12, 2011, the date on which the rights holder filed applications for the Objector’s CTMs;

January 12, 2012, the date on which the window opened for applications for the current round of newgTLDs;
May 30, 2012, which according to the Response was the date on which the Applicant applied for the
proposed <.CAM> gTLD;June 13, 2012, the date on which the application for the new gTLD was first published by ICANN;
December 6 and 7 2012 the dates on which Objector’s CTMs were registered;March 12, 2013, the date on which this Objection was filed; ora later date prior to the making of the decision on the objection.
This Panel takes the view that the entry bar should be set low for the purposes of establishing standing, as is
the case for considering complainant rights under paragraph 4.a.i of the UDRP.
Having considered the alternatives, and in the absence of any express guidance from the Procedure, thisPanel has decided to accept the date of filing of this Objection, which was March 12, 2013 as the relevant
date on which the Objector must have acquired “existing rights” for the purposes of acquiring standing.
The Objector was the registered owner of the Objector’s CTMs on that date and therefore in this Panel’sview has standing to bring this Objection. It is unnecessary therefore to consider whether it has standing
based on any claimed rights in the BOYCAM mark, the XLOVECAM mark or the Domain Names Relied uponby the Objector.
B. Factors for consideration(i) Whether the applied-for gTLD is identical or similar, including in appearance, phonetic sound, or
meaning, to the Objector’s existing marks.
The Objector’s CTMs
This Panel has compared the proposed gTLD with the Objector’s CTMs and each of them is composed of

page 12the letters “C”, “A” and “M” in combination, preceded by the punctuation mark “.” which can be referred to asa “full stop”, a “period” or most commonly in the context of the Internet a “dot”. For the purposes of thisdetermination it will be called a “dot” for ease of reference.
There being no other elements in either the marks or the proposed gTLD extension, and even allowing forthe fact that one of the Objector’s CTMs is a figurative mark, this Panel finds that they are identical inappearance.
As to phonetic sound, it is most probable that both the proposed new gTLD and the Objector’s CTMs would
be pronounced “dot cam” in the English language - the three letters “C”, “A” and “M” in combination being
pronounced as a single word rather than individually. This is almost certainly the case in the context of theInternet. Existing gTLDs are commonly pronounced in this way, for example <.com> being “dot com”, <.org>
being “dot org” and so on for other gTLDs such as <.int>, .<net> and <aero>. On the other hand thecomponent letters of two letter country code TLDs such as <.ie>,<.de>, <ru> are individually spoken. The
same is true for the <.eu>. Furthermore, the fact that the middle letter of the proposed gTLD is the vowel “A”
adds to the likelihood that it would be pronounced as the two words “dot CAM”.
As to meaning, because this Objection is framed in the context of use on the Internet, this Panel finds that
Internet users will attribute the identical generic meaning to the “cam” element in both the proposed .TLD
and the Objector’s CTMs as meaning a “webcam” or “camera”.
In another context, the initial “dot” element may well have no significance but in the context of the Internet,
the otherwise relatively insignificant “dot” takes on an important significance when used as part of an
address of a website or other online location as a separating character with a technical purpose. The
purpose will vary depending on the position of the “dot” in the address string. If it precedes the final elementof the string, it will be taken to mean the gTLD extension. The Applicant proposes to use the <.CAM> string
only as a gTLD extension and so the two elements of the “dot” and the word “cam” in combination will nothave an identical meaning to the trademark used in another context.
This Expert finds therefore that the proposed new gTLD <.CAM> is identical to the Objector’s CTMs inappearance and phonetic sound, but only similar in meaning.
The XLOVECAM and BOYCAM trademarks
The Objector also claims rights in the two registered trademarks BOYCAM and XLOVECAM that are ownedby third party companies which the Objector claims to control. The Applicant has argued that the Objector
has failed to provide any evidence of the nature of its claimed rights.
In the interest of expedition and rather than delaying the process with another round of submissions byrequesting additional information, this Panel has provisionally accepted the Objector’s claimed rights in theseregistered trademarks de bene esse and undertaken the exercise of comparison of each trademark with theproposed gTLD string <.CAM>.
This Panel finds that the proposed <.CAM> gTLD is neither identical nor similar in appearance, phonetic
sound or meaning with either the BOYCAM or XLOVECAM mark.
There is only one common element in each, namely the letters “cam”. Given the context of the application
under consideration, the services for which the trademarks are registered and the use to which the trade
marks have been put to date, it is probable that the “cam” element would be seen by the relevant public in
the context of the Internet.
Taking the trademarks and the <.CAM> string in their entirety and comparing each, there is no visual identity
or similarity. The aural element “boy” in BOYCAM” and the additional elements “X” and “LOVE” produce avery different and distinct sound from the sound of the words“ dot cam”.

page 13
As to meaning, on the balance of probabilities Internet users would attribute a reference to interactive
webcam services perhaps with content of an adult nature, particularly in relation to the XLOVECAM mark.
On the other hand the proposed gTLD <.CAM> has no such connotation of adult content and on the balanceof probabilities a simple generic meaning of “webcam” or “camera” would be attributed by Internet users.
This Panel finds that the proposed gTLD is neither identical nor similar to the BOYCAM and XLOVECAM
trademarks in appearance, phonetic sound or meaning.
The domain names relied upon by the Objector
The Objector also relies on its claimed service mark rights at common law in a number of Internet domainnames incorporating the element “cam”.
The Applicant has also argued that the Objector has failed to provide any evidence that any such common
law rights exist and further argues that even if they do exist, the Objector has failed to provide any evidenceof its ownership of such rights. As above, in the interest of expedition, this Panel has accepted the
Objector’s claims de bene esse and compared the Domain Names Relied upon by the Objector with theproposed gTLD string.
A threshold question to be decided is whether the ccTLD or gTLD extension in these domain names shouldbe ignored for the purpose of comparison. This would certainly be the case under the UDRP. The present
Objection is being considered under a new and distinct procedure from the UDRP and so UDRP decisions
are of limited value. For this reason, this Panel has compared these domain names both including andexcluding the TLD extension string in each case.
Each of the domain names incorporate the letters “c”, “a” and “m” in combination together with additional
element(s). The presence of the additional element(s) means that none of these domain names are identicalto the new gTLD <.CAM> string that is the subject of this Objection. The question to be considered in
respect of each is therefore whether the <.CAM> string is similar, including in appearance, phonetic sound,or meaning.
For the purpose of comparison the Panel has grouped the Objector’s domain names into three categories
and considered each as follows:<camdirect.fr>, <camdefolie>.com, <camsearch.at>, <camsearch.biz>, <camsearch.tv>;<xlovecam.com>, < xlovecam.fr>, <xlovecam.de>, <xgaycam.cc>, <xgaycam.info>; and<livecamhot.com>, < livecam.info>, <livecam.mobil>, <livecam.org>, <plaisircam.com>.

The domain names <camdirect.fr>, <camdefolie>.com>, <camsearch.at>, <camsearch.biz> and<camsearch.tv> are grouped together for the purpose of comparison because the element “cam” is the firstelement in each case in combination with a descriptive term.
This Expert finds that in appearance, none of the domain names relied upon by the Objector is similar to the
proposed <.CAM> gTLD string simpliciter.
Furthermore, this Expert finds that in each case the additional element in the domain name would create a
distinct and dissimilar phonetic sound from the words “dot cam”.
With regard to the respective meanings of the proposed new TLD string <.CAM> the second level domainname “camdirect” in <camdirect.fr> would be taken to refer to a website providing direct communication
facilities; in <camdefolie.com> the meaning would probably relate to something connected with madness,foolishness or fun; and the inference in the domain names <camsearch.at>, <camsearch.biz> and<camsearch.tv> relates to a search facility. The additional element in each case distinguishes the second
level domain name from the proposed generic meaning inferred by the proposed gTLD.

page 14
With regard to the domain names<xlovecam.com>, < xlovecam.fr>, <xlovecam.de>, <xgaycam.cc>, <xgaycam.info>; and<livecamhot.com>, < livecam.info>, <livecam.mobil>, <livecam.org>, <plaisircam.com>;

for the same reasons as are given above, this Panel finds that there is no visual or phonetic similarity
between the second level domain name and the <.CAM> string. Additionally in both of these categories the
additional elements contain inferences that they refer to online locations with adult content probably for
webcam services and the additional element would distinguish the domain name from the proposed gTLD ineach case.
With regard to all of the domain names, when making the comparisons, the respective gTLD and ccTLD
extensions further distinguish the domain names from the proposed gTLD.
In summary therefore this Panel finds that the proposed new gTLD <.CAM> is identical to the Objector’s
CTMs in appearance, phonetic sound and meaning but it is neither identical nor similar to the BOYCAM or
XLOVECAM marks or the domain names relied upon by the Objector.
As there is no similarity between the BOYCAM or XLOVECAM marks or the domain names relied upon by
the Objector, the use of the proposed gTLD take will not take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or
the reputation and/or unjustifiably impair the distinctive character or the reputation of the BOYCAM or
XLOVECAM marks or the domain names relied upon by the Objector or otherwise create an impermissible
likelihood of confusion.
The Objection must therefore fail insofar as it is based on claimed trademark rights in BOYCAM or
XLOVECAM marks or the domain names relied upon by the Objector. It is not necessary to consider
therefore whether the Objector has any rights in these domain names.
Furthermore, it follows that it is not necessary to give further consideration to the objection insofar as it isbased on the BOYCAM or XLOVECAM marks or the domain names relied upon by the Objector and thisPanel will proceed to consider the Objection insofar as it relates to the Objector’s CTMs only.
(ii) Whether the Objector’s acquisition and use of rights in the mark has been bona fide.
The applications to register the Objector’s CTMs were made on December 12, 2011. The application
window for the new gTLDs opened in January 2012.
While the Objector may well have anticipated or feared that there would be other parties (such as the
Applicant) making applications for the <.CAM>, gTLD, it is improbable that the Applicant’s intentions were
known to the Objector in December 2011.
ICANN did not publish the Applicant’s application until June 2012.
This Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities, the Objector made the Community Trade Markapplications with the ICANN process in mind.
On the balance of probabilities when the applications were made in December 2011, the Applicant intended
to apply for the <.CAM> gTLD itself which it duly did. On the balance of probabilities, the Objector applied toregister the Objector’s CTMs and made similar applications in the United States to reserve rights in the hopeof success in the ICANN application process.
In the circumstances, this Panel must accept the Objector’s CTMs as valid unless and until they aresuccessfully challenged and revoked.
As this Panel has found that there is no similarity between the proposed gTLD and the BOYCAM mark, thepage 15XLOVECAM mark or the second level domain names relied upon by the Objector it is not necessary to givefurther consideration to these marks and domain names under this heading.
(iii) 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 or of a third party.
The Objector has not adduced any evidence of use of the .CAM (word) mark, the .CAM (fig.) mark within theEuropean Community or elsewhere, as CTMs or otherwise. The Applicant has adduced evidence that there
is no public recognition of the <.CAM> string as being the Objector’s trade mark. This Panel finds that on thebalance of probabilities, the Objector has made no or at most token use of the CAM (word) mark and the.CAM (fig.) marks relied upon by the Objector.
As this Panel has found that there is no similarity between the proposed gTLD and the BOYCAM mark, theXLOVECAM mark or the second level domain names relied upon by the Objector it is not necessary to givefurther consideration to these marks and domain names under this heading either.
(iv) The Applicant’s intent in applying for the gTLD, including whether the Applicant 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 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.
This Panel finds that on the evidence adduced, the Applicant’s application for the <.CAM> gTLD was on
May 30, 2012, and remains a bona fide application in furtherance of a business venture, which wasundertaken with no knowledge of the Objector’s CTMs as they did not exist at the time.
The Applicant argues that the Objector had no “existing” rights in the Objector’s CTMs when it made theapplication for the proposed gTLD on May 30, 2012.
This Panel accepts that the Objector was not a “rightsholder” until December 6 and 7, 2012.
As this Panel has found that there is no similarity between the proposed gTLD and the BOYCAM mark, theXLOVECAM mark or the second level domain names relied upon by the Objector it is not necessary to givefurther consideration to these marks and domain names under this heading either but it is improbable that
the Applicant considered that there was any significant similarity between the proposed gTLD and the
BOYCAM, XLOVECAM marks or any of the domain names that the Objector relies upon.
(v) Whether and to what extent the Applicant has used, or has made demonstrable preparations touse, the sign corresponding to the gTLD in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services
or a bona fide provision of information in a way that does not interfere with the legitimate exercise
by the objector of its mark rights.
This Panel accepts that the Applicant’s only interest in <.CAM> is as the gTLD extension for which it hasapplied. There is no indication on the record that the Applicant has made any use of the <.CAM> string
except insofar as it has applied to ICANN to manage the proposed <.CAM> gTLD registry.
(vi) Whether the Applicant 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, hasbeen bona fide, and whether the purported or likely use of the gTLD by the Applicant is consistent
with such acquisition or use.
As above, this Panel accepts that the Applicant’s only interest in <.CAM> is as the gTLD extension for which
it has made a bona fide application and the Applicant expressly states that it makes no claim to any
trademark rights in the proposed gTLD string.

page 16(vii) Whether and to what extent the Applicant has been commonly known by the sign corresponding
to the gTLD, and if so, whether any purported or likely use of the gTLD by the Applicant is consistent
therewith and bona fide.
The Applicant has not been commonly known by the gTLD and makes no such claim.
(viii) Whether the Applicant intended use of the gTLD would create a likelihood of confusion with the
Objector’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the gTLD.
Because of the descriptive and generic character of the “cam” word element in each of the Objector’s CTMs
the protection afforded by the Objector’s CTMs must be limited in scope particularly when used in relation to
the Internet, webcams or cameras.
The Objector has made only token use, if any, of either of the Objector’s CTMs, and on the evidence before
this Panel the Objector has not acquired any reputation or goodwill in either mark through use. If the
Objector is awarded the gTLD it will have the opportunity to use these marks to provide registry services andother services in classes 35, 38, 42 and 45 as claimed in the CTM registrations.
On the other hand, it is axiomatic that if the Applicant is awarded the proposed gTLD, then the Objector
cannot use the .CAM trademark in the provision of registry services, notwithstanding that the descriptions of
the services in classes 35, 38, 42 and 45 are sufficiently broadly drafted as to include the provision ofregistry services. The Objector can only use the .CAM as a gTLD extension if it is successful in its
application.
If used by the Objector in a trademark sense within the classes of services included in the registrations, but
unrelated to Internet-based services, the “dot” element is unlikely to contribute very much distinctiveness tothe .CAM trademarks.
If used in a trademark sense related to cameras or webcams the “dot” would be an even less distinctive
element, the dominant element being the descriptive and generic word “cam” referring to cameras andwebcams in such circumstances and afforded limited protection. The rights accruing to the Objector could
not be used to prevent providers of products or services to describe their products.
By contrast however, if used in relation to the Internet, the “dot” element, when in combination with the “cam”
element takes on a very significant meaning as a separator character in the address of a website or other
online location such as an email address. If it immediately precedes the final element in a domain name oraddress, it separates the top-level and second-level domain names – it is the extension for the address ofthe top-level domain name registry. This Panel finds that in such circumstances, Internet users would
attribute the same meaning to .CAM as did the Examiner in the USPTO quoted in the Applicant’s
submissions above i.e. that “the applied-for mark consists solely of a top-level domain name”.
The Panel is conscious that the Applicant makes no claim to any trademark rights in the <.CAM> string andproposes only to use the string it in its generic, descriptive sense as the top level domain name. If the
Applicant behaves differently, then the Objector may have a remedy in another forum in appropriate
circumstances.
Additionally, this Panel has considered the Applicant’s submissions that a top level domain name cannot bea trade mark and the statement of the Examiner in the USPTO above. While this assertion may have beentrue in the past, in the dynamic world of the Internet the lines between top-level domain names andtrademarks are becoming less definite, e.g. with the arrival of proposed new “dotBrand” gTLDs. While it may
still be argued that a top level domain name is not in itself a trademark, a trademark may be used as a top
level domain name as has been the case heretofore with second level domain names.
This Panel finds that the use of the <.CAM> gTLD as proposed by the Applicant would not create a likelihoodof confusion with the Objector’s CTMs as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the gTLD.

page 17

For completeness, as this Panel has found that there is no similarity between the proposed gTLD and the
BOYCAM mark, the XLOVECAM mark or the domain names relied upon by the Objector there is no
likelihood of confusion between any of them and the proposed gTLD.

7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Objection is rejected.

[signed]James Bridgeman
Sole Panel Expert
Date: July 30, 2013