Base chatsex Freee video sex best english
On August 13, 2001, Respondent transmitted to WIPO a formal petition for the late filing of a Response, claiming failure to receive the initial notification.(d) By telefax to WIPO dated August 13, 2001, Complainant filed a document opposing extension of the period for filing a Response, on grounds of evidence that Respondent had in fact received the initial notification of the Complaint, and that Respondent had improperly modified its registration record, including contact information, subsequent to initiation of this proceeding.(e) On August 13, 2001, WIPO notified Respondent by e-mail that, although WIPO records indicated that the relevant documents had been properly transmitted to the contact addresses contained in Respondent’s record of registration, it would nonetheless grant an extension until August 18, 2001, for the filing of a Response.
WIPO indicated, however, that the panel appointed to decide the proceeding would make the ultimate determination regarding whether the Response would be admitted.(f) On August 18, 2001, Respondent’s Response was received via e-mail by WIPO. Jeffrey Samuels as the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") in this matter.
Respondent also transmitted its Response to Complainant. Each panelist had previously transmitted to WIPO an executed Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence ("Statement and Declaration").
Respondent elected to have this proceeding decided by a three-member panel.(g) In e-mail correspondence with WIPO between August 21 and August 27, 2001, Complainant queried whether it was entitled to file a reply to the Response submitted by Respondent, and objected to Respondent’s request for a three-member panel on grounds that Respondent had not replied to the Complaint within the time limits established by the Policy. WIPO notified the Panel that, absent exceptional circumstances, it would be required to forward its decision to WIPO by October 16, 2001.
(with the Registrar’s Response received by WIPO on July 16, 2001).(b) On July 19, 2001, WIPO transmitted notification of the Complaint and commencement of the proceeding to Respondent via e-mail and courier mail.
Air courier tracking records indicate that the Complaint was delivered on July 23, 2001, to the address of Respondent specified in its registration record.
The notification indicated that the final date for transmission of a Response to WIPO and Complainant was August 8, 2001.(c) By e-mail dated August 10, 2001, Respondent’s counsel advised WIPO that Respondent had discovered the existence of this proceeding on WIPO’s website, that Respondent had not received notice of the proceeding or the Complaint, and requested that an extension be granted for the late filing of a Response.
WIPO advised Complainant that the Panel would have discretion whether to accept additional submissions, and proceeded with the appointment of a three-member panel.(h) By telefax dated August 28/29, 2001, Complainant transmitted to WIPO its "Complainant’s Response to late-filed Respondants [sic] Response".(i) On September 27, 2001, Complainant and Respondent were notified by WIPO of the appointment of Prof. On September 27, 2001, WIPO transmitted an electronic file containing relevant documents to each Panel member.
Each Panel member subsequently received a hard copy of the file in this matter by courier from WIPO. Factual Background Complainant has filed an application for registration of the stylized word service mark ".