If the last name is hypenated e. Covey-Jones , try using one of the names without the hyphen. Search with the last 6 digits of a phone number to find a specific business listing.
Exit Code is the 2 to 3 digit prefix needed to dial out from a country, when calling internationally. Share Pin Email. I thought you're not suppose to use PO boxes to sign up for new accounts o. In the following cases, the user's right to reimbursement is already excluded in advance:. In particular, TerminApp is under no obligation to change the online booking solution to adapt it to changes in the services or interfaces of third-party providers. Important reasons for TerminApp are in particular the following: Disregard of legal regulations by the user; Offence of the user against his contractual duties; The call of the services offered on the TerminApp websites is considerably affected by the presence of the user e.
Government Office Search Tips Enter a keywork like education, health, police For full office, try the formal office or ministry name e. Ministry of National Security If the department name is hyphenated, try searching without the hyphen. This page has been added to your favorites!
Login Sign Up. HI, view profile. By Phone Number. We know Guernsey. Trending in Guernsey. Load More Results. Explore Guernsey. Article: Lifestyle. The Complainant says that it is also the registered proprietor in the United Kingdom, of a number of trademarks comprising or incorporating the word YELL. That registration covered various telecommunications and data communications goods, computer software recorded on tapes, and a range of other goods generally associated with computer software and hardware and digital communications.
On October 25, , BT registered the word mark YELL in the United Kingdom as a service mark in a number of international classes, including classes 35, 36, 37, 38, and This mark was registered in respect of certain goods in international Classes 9 and 16, and in respect of various services in international Classes 35 through This particular registration also covered certain goods in international Classes 9 and 16, and various services in Classes 35 through The application for this mark appears to have been filed on November 20, , and the mark registered on October 13, Again, the US registration of the YELL large square mark covered certain goods in international Classes 9 and 16, and certain services in Classes 35 through It is not necessary to refer to these other registrations.
The Complainant has annexed to the Complaint examples of national newspaper advertisements for these on-line services, marketed under the mark YELL, dating back to January Later, the Respondent creates a search page and search terms which are connected to the content of the domain name. The domain name is used in conjunction with an advertising subscription database operated by an advertising consolidator, on the basis of correspondence between terms in the domain name and search terms for which advertisers have paid subscriptions on a performance basis.
In this case the Respondent has used the targeted advertising service operated by a company called Overture, a subsidiary of Yahoo, Inc! The Complainant explains that many businesses have agreements with Overture pursuant to which Overture distributes their advertisements to third party websites such as the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve.
The third party websites on which the advertisements are displayed receive revenue — the advertiser pays for the service in accordance with the number of hits its advertisement has received. The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent on the following dates:. The disputed domain names are all pointed to an on-line directory or directories , listing categories of goods and services. The Complainant has produced copies of the home pages for the websites to which each of the disputed domain names resolve. However, the Respondent in its Response asserts that all domains it acquires are immediately pointed to a website on acquisition, and that there would only have been brief periods eg when a server was down when one of its domains would not be pointing to an active website.
On May 9, , the Complainant wrote again to the Respondent. The Complainant received no reply to either letter. Among literally thousands of items of correspondence the Respondent receives on any given day, which the Respondent attempts to filter although not always successfully, the Respondent obtains actual notice of very few. Archive searches of the websites to which the disputed domain names have resolved over the years since they were registered, has not been possible — the Respondent has used robot.
That knowledge prompted it to write to the Respondent on June 18, This letter appears to have been correctly addressed. The Complainant advised that its YELL mark and the YELL device marks were registered in respect of a wide range of goods and services, including on-line and internet services, and classified directory services. Again, this letter appears to have drawn no response from the Respondent. The Respondent has not been making a bona fide, or legitimate, use of the disputed domain names, for the following reasons:.
The Respondent therefore did not use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before it received notice of the dispute Policy, para 4 c i.
In fact the Respondent is not based in or providing services from the United Kingdom. The Complainant was a major supplier of on-line classified directory services in the United Kingdom, and the Respondent operates in the same sector as the Complainant. The Respondent is a sophisticated user of the Internet and the domain name system. In fact, the Respondent has no connection with London.
Although the home page at the website at this domain name lists results with a connection to London, the rest of the website has no connection with London.
The Respondent therefore cannot claim to have been using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before receipt of notice of the dispute Policy para 4 c i. That domain name was also therefore registered in bad faith. Mere probability alone dictates that a larger number of domain names will incorporate some variant of a shorter string than a longer one, and it would be an odd result for the Policy to inadvertently confer greater rights merely as a consequence of mathematical probability.
With marks consisting of very short alphanumeric strings, there must be a point at which the addition or elimination of the letters is more than a non-substantial change — proportionately, small variations can be substantial. Incorporated of Florida had maintained a United States registration for the mark Y. The Complainant has not produced any evidence of actual confusion.
There must be a difference between mere similarity, and confusing similarity. The disputed domain names were not registered via a United Kingdom registrar, and the disputed domain names have been used in connection with advertising results produced outside of the United Kingdom by the Overture Division of Yahoo. The web page contents are not intended to confuse or divert visitors seeking a business directory in London. The Respondent has not sought to convey the impression that it is located in the United Kingdom, or associated with any business entity in the United Kingdom.
The Respondent attempts to filter the thousands of items of correspondence it receives on any given day, and it obtains actual notice of very few of those letters. The Respondent is not aware of any time since registration of the disputed domain names when the disputed domain names have not been connected with the advertising data bases used by the Respondent.
The Respondent is under a contractual obligation to prevent archiving of stale content on the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve. All of the non-limiting examples set out in paragraph 4 b of the Policy require a knowing, willful intent to exploit rights known to belong to another. That is not the position in this proceeding. That is a legitimate business activity. The registrations of the disputed domain names have not deprived the Complainant of the ability to reflect its alleged marks in other domain names.
Find People by using our extensive online white pages people directory. We provide name, address, and phone lookups. Reverse Address Lookup - Find people by searching for complete or partial Use our online address directory where you can search for an address to find other people information about the resident, such as full name and phone number.
In both cases the complaints were denied. Apparently, Yel Electronics Limited allowed the domain name to lapse at the end of its registration in , and the domain name was deleted from the registry and then registered by the Respondent in The Complainant has not proven each criterion of the Policy with respect to each of the disputed domain names, and the Complaint should be denied. Paragraph 4 b of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
Those circumstances are:.
Paragraph 4 c of the Policy sets out a number of circumstances, again without limitation, which may be effective for a respondent to demonstrate that it has rights to, or legitimate interests in, the disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved this part of the Complaint. The Complainant has not produced copies of assignments showing that BT has assigned the relevant marks to it.