name infringes on the use of the trademark name, a person other than the owner of the trademark should be able to continue to use the domain name.”1 In addition to this, The Domestic Trademark Law allows users to register domain names that resemble a specific trademark, on condition that the goods and the services provided are different, which is the case of Canadian Crafts Connexion Inc. Moreover, the Canterbury Crafts Connection Company has a registered United Kingdom trademark for CanCraftsConnexCo., not for Cancraftsconnex. Even if the English company would try to combat this argument with the fact that these two trademarks seem confusingly similar, CCC has the possibility to argue this by mentioning that for the purposes of the UDRP confusion is not of great importance.
Another element that the Canterbury Crafts Connection Company must prove in order to force CCC to hand over their domain name is the lack of rights or legitimate reasons of the defendant in the challenged domain name. In this case, I would advise CCC to demonstrate this interest by appealing to the entire name of the company – Canadian Crafts Connexion Inc. and explaining the necessity of using the shortened name for the website. Therefore, CCC has a legitimate reason in this domain name, which allows it, under the law provisions, to preserve this name.
Regarding the first request, the defamatory character of the painting must be established in order to understand whether it is defamatory or not. There is no exact legislation in Canada that would clarify this question; therefore, it is necessary to make analogies between the internet communications and the communications made via media. Publication or dissemination to a third party is essential to proving defamation. Posting the painting online means making it available and communicating the picture’s message to everybody. This raises the following legal issue: does the internet communication fall under the provisions of the Libel and