text:
официальный сайт ВОИС
Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Balglow Finance S.A., Fortuna ComГ©rcio e Franquias Ltda. v. Name Administration Inc. (BVI)
Case No. D2008-1216
1. The Parties
The Complainants are Balglow Finance S.A. of Montevideo, Uruguay, and Fortuna ComГ©rcio e Franquias Ltda. of SГЈo Paulo, Brazil, represented by Barros e Souza Advogados, Brazil.
The Respondent is Name Administration Inc. (BVI) of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I., Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by John Berryhill Ph.d., Esq., United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <chillibeans.com> is registered with Domain Name Sales Corp.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the вЂњCenterвЂќ) on August 8, 2008. On August 12, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Domain Name Sales Corp. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 17, 2008, Domain Name Sales Corp. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the вЂњPolicyвЂќ), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the вЂњRulesвЂќ), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the вЂњSupplemental RulesвЂќ).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced August 18, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response September 7, 2008. The Response was filed with the Center on September 8, 2008.
The Center appointed William R. Towns, M. Scott Donahey and Sir Ian Barker as panelists in this matter on October 1, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The Complainant on September 14, 2008, submitted to the Center a further statement entitled вЂњReply to ResponseвЂќ, in which the Complainant, inter alia, objected to the PanelвЂ™s consideration of the Response as untimely submitted. The Panel issued a Procedural Order on October 10, 2008, in which the Panel determined that the Response should be allowed. The Panel further accepted the ComplainantвЂ™s Reply to Response, to the extent that it contained additional unsolicited arguments regarding the Response, and afforded the Respondent until October 17, 2008, to submit a Sur-Reply. The RespondentвЂ™s Sur-Reply was submitted to the Center on October 17, 2008.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant Balglow Finance S.A. (вЂњBalglowвЂќ), of Uruguay, is the owner of trademark registrations for CHILLI BEANS for eyewear, watches, and related goods in Brazil, the European Union, and the United States of America. The mark is best known in connection with sunglasses sold exclusively in retail stores or kiosks operated by the Complainant Fortuna ComГ©rcio e Franquias Ltda. (вЂњFortunaвЂќ), a Brazilian company, under the CHILLI BEANS name. Fortuna also maintains an official CHILLI BEANS website at вЂњwww.chillibeans.com.brвЂќ.1 Beginning with a single kiosk in Brazil opened in the latter part of 2000, there are now more than 200 CHILLI BEANS retail outlets in Brazil, 6 retail outlets in Portugal, and one store in the United States, located in Los Angeles, California. The first of the Portugal stores was opened in 2005, and the Los Angeles location was opened in 2006.
At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Complainant Balglow owned two Community trademark registrations for CHILLI BEANS issued by OHIM on February 3, 2003, and July 15, 2003,2 and two Brazilian registrations for CHILLI BEANS issued by the Brazilian trademark office on March 11, 2008. All four of these registrations resulted from trademark applications filed between September 2000 and April 2002.3 In addition, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a registration for CHILLI BEANS on April 17, 2007, the application for which was filed in May 2002, originally on an intent-to-use basis. According to the USPTO database, the registrant was a Brazilian company, C Vinte E Cinco Comercio Ltda., which later assigned the registration to the Complainant Balglow. This assignment was recorded by the USPTO on September 4, 2008, about three weeks after the filing of the Complaint in this case.4
Insofar as the record reflects, each of the ComplainantsвЂ™ trademark registrations is for a design mark consisting of the drawing of a pepper and the stylized words вЂњChilli BeansвЂќ in a shaded oval. The founder of the ComplainantsвЂ™ business, Caito Maia, indicated in a magazine article published in 2008 that he adopted the mark because he is a fan of Mexican food and chilli beans, the English language name for a popular spiced bean food dish. The record further reflects that вЂњchilliвЂќ is an alternative spelling for вЂњchiliвЂќ.
The Respondent, based in the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands, is in the business of registering domain names for use with paid search advertising. The Respondent describes itself on its website as an online media network that operates thousands of вЂњgenericвЂќ domain names that is, according to the Respondent, вЂњterms that have descriptive meaning to many people,вЂќ for which there are advertisers who want to buy targeted traffic.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 7, 2004. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page at вЂњwww.chillibeans.comвЂќ (вЂњChilliBeans.com websiteвЂќ), which contains links purportedly relevant to the disputed domain name. At present, the landing page of the RespondentвЂ™s ChilliBeans.com website contains links organized under the categories of вЂњmost relevant linkвЂќ, вЂњother relevant linksвЂќ, вЂњrelated linksвЂќ, and вЂњfood/drink categoriesвЂќ. These links consist primarily of words and phrases such as вЂњchiliвЂќ, вЂњfoodвЂќ, вЂњfood and wineвЂќ, вЂњcookingвЂќ, вЂњfruitвЂќ, вЂњvegetablesвЂќ, вЂњnutrients, вЂњgrocery storesвЂќ, вЂњhealthy recipesвЂќ, and вЂњcatering supplyвЂќ. Internet visitors clicking on any of these links are directed to secondary web pages that contain paid advertising links (вЂњsponsored resultsвЂќ) and вЂњrelated linksвЂќ. The following links (or tabs) are placed immediately below the prominent ChilliBeans.com logo at the top of the RespondentвЂ™s website: вЂњHomeвЂќ, вЂњChili BeanвЂќ, вЂњCanning JarsвЂќ, вЂњGrocery OnlineвЂќ and вЂњCountry Mail BoxesвЂќ. These links are included not only on the landing page but also on the secondary web pages where paid advertising links are displayed.
The Respondent has made several changes to the ChilliBeans.com landing page since the filing of the Complainant. No longer displayed on the landing page are a number of links of questionable relevance to the domain name that previously were included under the category вЂњpopular linksвЂќ. In addition, a link for вЂњglassesвЂќ that previously was displayed immediately below the ChilliBeans.com logo has been removed. Prior to this change, Internet visitors clicking on the вЂњglassesвЂќ link were directed to a secondary web page with advertising links to websites selling eyeglasses and sunglasses, and вЂњrelated linksвЂќ for eyewear, including eyeglasses and sunglasses, and contact lens. The вЂњglassesвЂќ link was removed by the Respondent after it was pointed out in the Complaint. The Complaint also presents traffic data for the ChilliBeans.com website from a search conducted on the Alexa website on August 25, 2008, reflecting that seventy-five percent (75%) of ChilliBeans.com website users come from Brazil.
5. PartiesвЂ™ Contentions
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name <chillibeans.com> is identical and confusingly similar to the CHILLI BEANS mark. According to the Complainants, CHILLI BEANS is a well-known brand of sunglasses and related goods that have been sold internationally for more than ten (10) years. The Complainants argue that trademark registrations for CHILLI BEANS were obtained prior to the RespondentвЂ™s registration of the disputed domain name, and that pending applications to register the mark in Brazil and the United States were of record as far back as four (4) years before the domain name registration. The Complainants also point out that the domain name <chillibeans.com.br> was created in June 2000, and is used in connection with the ComplainantsвЂ™ official website.
The Complainants assert that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because the Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name or acquired any trademark of service mark rights in the domain name. In addition, according to the Complainants, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is the Complainant using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
To the contrary, the Complainants contend that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website that includes pay-per-click advertising for third party websites offering goods competing with those offered by the Complainants. Specifically, the Complainants refer to the вЂњglassesвЂќ tab or link on the landing page of the RespondentвЂ™s website, which directs Internet visitors to a secondary web page containing sponsored links and related links to websites offering sunglasses and related products of the ComplainantsвЂ™ competitors.
While the Complainants acknowledge that вЂњchilli beansвЂќ has a common or descriptive meaning as a food dish, they contend that links on the RespondentвЂ™s website to paid advertising for sunglasses, eyeglasses and related products are relevant only to the CHILLI BEANS mark. In further support of this position, the Complainants rely on a search conducted on August 25, 2008, using the Alexa traffic ranking tool, which reflects that seventy-five percent (75%) of the disputed domain nameвЂ™s traffic derives from users based in Brazil. In addition, the Complainants place reliance on the results of a Google search conducted on August 4, 2008, reflecting that <chillibeans.com.br>, which resolves to the ComplainantsвЂ™ website, is the most popular search result for the search term вЂњchilli beansвЂќ.
The Complainants contend that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. The Complainants observe that the Respondent regularly registers expired or otherwise available domain names for use with pay-per-click landing pages. According to the Complainants, while the Respondent alleges that it only targets вЂњgenericвЂќ domain names, the Respondent makes no effort to discharge its obligation under paragraph 2 of the Policy to avoid registering domain names that infringe third-party trademarks, but instead chooses to remain willfully blind regarding whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to anotherвЂ™s trademark.
The Complainants urge that the RespondentвЂ™s knowledge of the CHILLI BEANS mark should be inferred from such вЂњwillful blindnessвЂќ, particularly in circumstances where the disputed domain name has been used in its trademark sense on the RespondentвЂ™s website to generate advertising revenues. According to the Complainants, a simple search of either the USPTO or OHIM trademark databases prior to the registration of the disputed domain name would have informed the Respondent of the ComplainantsвЂ™ rights in the CHILLI BEANS mark.
The Complainants argue that the RespondentвЂ™s failure to undertake reasonable measures to ensure that the registration of the disputed domain name did not violate the ComplainantsвЂ™ rights in the CHILLI BEANS mark, coupled with the RespondentвЂ™s use of the disputed domain name to generate advertising revenue from pay-per-click links related to the ComplainantвЂ™s trademark, establishes registration and use in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy. The Complainants reject as untenable the RespondentвЂ™s claim that it had no intention to exploit or profit from the RespondentвЂ™s CHILLI BEANS mark, and dispute that the placement of paid advertising links for sunglasses is the unintended consequence of the term вЂњglassesвЂќ being susceptible to use with advertisements relating to both вЂњbeverage glassesвЂќ and вЂњeyeglassesвЂќ.
The Complainants further assert that the RespondentвЂ™s removal of the вЂњglassesвЂќ link from its website after the filing of the Complainant is not sufficient to negate the bad faith of the Respondent, and the Complainants have included in their вЂњReply to ResponseвЂќ a screen shot of the RespondentвЂ™s website that Complainants contend shows that the Respondent continues to profit from paid advertising links related to the ComplainantвЂ™s trademark.
The Respondent maintains that it registered the disputed domain name prior to any use by the Complainants of the CHILLI BEANS mark, for use in connection with food products. The Respondent submits that prior to notice of a dispute the Respondent was using the domain name in connection with the ChilliBeans.com website, to provide automated advertising links to goods and services relating to food and beverages consistent with the вЂњprimaryвЂќ meaning of the term вЂњchilli beansвЂќ.
The Respondent proffers evidence that various preparations of spiced red or black beans are commonly known to English speakers as вЂњchilli beansвЂќ. According to the Respondent, this association between the term вЂњchilli beansвЂќ and food products also is reinforced by the drawing of a pepper in the ComplainantsвЂ™ figurative mark, and by the ComplainantsвЂ™ public acknowledgment that the businessвЂ™ founder had this food dish in mind when the CHILLI BEANS mark was adopted.
The Respondent acknowledges that the Complainants have filed вЂњa prodigious number of trademark applicationsвЂќ, but asserts that pending applications do not establish rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy. The Respondent concedes in its supplemental statement, however, that the Complainants had obtained at least two Community trademark registrations for CHILLI BEANS predating the RespondentвЂ™s registration of the disputed domain name on September 7, 2004.
Nonetheless, the Respondent maintains that it has every right to use the disputed domain name in connection with food products. The Respondent argues that the ComplainantsвЂ™ reliance on screenshots of the RespondentвЂ™s website depicting a вЂњglassesвЂќ link on the landing page and the presence of paid advertising links on a secondary web page targeting sunglasses and related products is misplaced. The Respondent states that the вЂњglassesвЂќ term вЂњapparently crept into an automated relevance-matching system for a web page that is clearly targeted toward food productsвЂќ, and urges that the mere incidence of a вЂњglassesвЂќ link is hardly representative of the overall impression presented by the RespondentвЂ™s website. The Respondent further asserts that вЂњglassesвЂќ has two meanings as a beverage vessel, bean or chilli home canning supplies, or as a worn optical device.
In support of the contention that the website is targeted toward food products, the Respondent urges the Panel to consult the Internet Archive (www.archive.org). Although the Respondent notes (without explanation) that archived pages from the RespondentвЂ™s website are not available on the Internet Archive, the Respondent asserts that an available PHP input string вЂњcat=food/drinkвЂќ from October 11, 2004, and an вЂњexit pageвЂќ code вЂњurl=exitpage.FoodDrink.phpвЂќ from December 6, 2004, demonstrate that search results for which the RespondentвЂ™s website were targeted include the categories of food and drink.
The Respondent also is dismissive of the ComplainantsвЂ™ assertion that the ChilliBeans.com website continues to target pay-per-click advertising related to the CHILLI BEANS mark. The Respondent is adamant that the post-Complaint screenshot relied on by the Complainant in its вЂњReply to ResponseвЂќ could only have been arrived at through the use of the search function provided on the RespondentвЂ™s website, and that the ComplainantвЂ™s use of this screenshot is thus misleading and deceptive.
The Respondent asserts that there is no evidence of bad faith in the record before the Panel. The Respondent maintains that its overall use of domain names in connection with food and recipes is well documented, pointing to the RespondentвЂ™s registration of the trademark QUICKFARES.COM in connection with advertising and directory services promoting the services of others engaged in providing food and beverages, as well as the registration of more than fifty (50) domain names relating either to chili or to beans.
The Respondent denies being aware of the ComplainantsвЂ™ rights in the CHILLI BEANS mark when it registered the disputed domain name in September 2004, claiming that the Respondent made no use of the mark before September 2006. Further, assuming arguendo that the Respondent had such knowledge, the Respondent posits that this would not render illegitimate its use of the disputed domain name with food products. Such use, according to the Respondent, documents and demonstrates its intent to use the domain name consistent with its commonly understood or вЂњprimaryвЂќ meaning. According to the Respondent, the вЂњrecent and briefвЂќ appearance of a single вЂњglassesвЂќ link among an overwhelming number of links relating to food and recipes has no probative value regarding the RespondentвЂ™s intent in registering and using the disputed domain name. The Respondent asserts that the advertising retrieval software used for keyword advertising is incapable of differentiating between the two meanings of вЂњglassesвЂќ, and that the RespondentвЂ™s removal of the вЂњglassesвЂќ link in view of the вЂњheretofore unappreciated ambiguity of the meaning of that wordвЂќ does not change the manifest intent of the Respondent respecting the registration and use of the domain name, in the overall context of the facts and circumstances present in the record.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Scope of the Policy
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0774. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of вЂњthe abusive registration of domain namesвЂќ, also known as вЂњcybersquattingвЂќ. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0187. See Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, paragraphs 169 and 170.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:
(i) The domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Cancellation or transfer of the domain name is the sole remedy provided to the Complainant under the Policy, as set forth in paragraph 4(i).
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four situations under which the registration and use of a domain name is deemed to be in bad faith, but does not limit a finding of bad faith to only these situations.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy in turn identifies three means through which a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Although the complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is primarily if not exclusively within the knowledge of the respondent. Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <chillibeans.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants CHILLI BEANS mark, in which the Complainants have demonstrated rights in for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The critical inquiry under the first element of the Policy is whether the mark and domain name, when directly compared, are identical or confusingly similar. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0662. See also Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson Sr.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1525. That is the case here. The Panel finds that the inclusion of design elements in the ComplainantsвЂ™ mark does not dispel confusing similarity, particularly given that the word portion of the mark and domain name are identical.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As noted above, once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel is persuaded from the record of this case that a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) has been made. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the ComplainantsвЂ™ mark. The Complainants had secured Community trademark registrations for the CHILLI BEANS mark more than a year before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in September 2004, and there is evidence in the record of the ComplainantsвЂ™ use of the mark in Brazil as early as the year 2000 in connection with sunglasses and other related products. There is no indication in the record that the Respondent explored the possibility of third-party trademarks before registering the disputed domain name. Further, there is evidence of pay-per-click advertising links on the RespondentвЂ™s website related to a trademark, which the Respondent made no effort to remove until after the filing of the Complaint.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondentвЂ™s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent submits that prior to notice of a dispute the Respondent was using the domain name in connection with the ChilliBeans.com website to provide automated advertising links to goods and services relating to food and beverages, consistent with the вЂњprimaryвЂќ meaning of the term вЂњchilli beansвЂќ. As the Panel appreciates it, the RespondentвЂ™s position is that the domain name therefore is being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
A number of panels have concluded that a respondent may have a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based on the appeal of a commonly used descriptive phrase, even where the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark of a complainant. See National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Barry Preston,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0424; Private Media Group, Inc., Cinecraft Ltd. v. DHL Virtual Networks Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0843; T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. v. J A Rich,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1044; Sweeps Vacuum & Repair Center, Inc. v. Nett Corp.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0031; EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0047. Where a respondent registers a domain name consisting of вЂњdictionaryвЂќ terms because the respondent has a good faith belief that the domain nameвЂ™s value derives from its generic or descriptive qualities, the use of the domain name consistent with such good faith belief may establish a legitimate interest. See Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1304. But the domain name must have been registered because of, and any use consistent with, its attraction as a dictionary word or descriptive term, and not because of any value corresponding to a trademark. Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0964. See also Asian World of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1415; HSBC Finance Corporation v. Clear Blue Sky Inc. and Domain Manager,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0062.
The Panel notes that paragraph 2 of the Policy implicitly requires some good faith effort to avoid registering and using domain names corresponding to trademarks in violation of the Policy.5 See Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg, supra. In this case, the Respondent has not indicated that it explored the possibility of third-party rights in any way before registering and using the disputed domain name. Although the Respondent does not so acknowledge, it is evident from the record that even a cursory search of the OHIM trademark database prior to the RespondentвЂ™s registration of the disputed domain name would have disclosed the existence of two Community trademark registrations for CHILLI BEANS. And a cursory search of the USPTO trademark database would have disclosed the existence of a pending application to register the CHILLI BEANS mark. See, e.g., HSBC Finance Corporation, supra.
The RespondentвЂ™s position appears to be that вЂ“ without regard to any knowledge of the ComplainantвЂ™s rights in the CHILLI BEANS mark вЂ“ it enjoys an absolute right to operate a pay-per-click landing page keyed to the commonly understood or вЂњprimaryвЂќ meaning of вЂњchilli beansвЂќ. If that is the RespondentвЂ™s position, it is at variance with Panel decisions holding that those who register domain names in large numbers for targeted advertising, often using automated programs and processes, cannot simply turn a blind eye to the possibility that the names they are registering will infringe or violate third-party trademark rights. See, e.g., Grundfos A/S v. Texas International Property Associates,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1448; mVisible Technologies Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1141; Mobile Communication Service Inc., supra.
These Panel decisions are firmly grounded in an appreciation that paragraph 2 of the Policy requires registrants to make reasonable efforts to ensure they are not infringing upon third-party rights. See, e.g., Terroni Inc. v. Gioacchino Zerbo,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0666. Moreover, as has been recognized in both Asian World of Martial Arts Inc., supra, and mVisible Technologies Inc., supra, many domain names have both dictionary word meanings and trademark-related meanings. The disputed domain name at issue here falls into this category. Bringing to bear the force of these Panel decisions in the context of this case, where the Respondent has not indicated that it explored the possibility of third-party rights before registering the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that to establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name the Respondent must come forward with credible evidence that the disputed domain name was registered because of its attraction as a generic or descriptive term, and not because of its value corresponding to a trademark, and credible evidence that there has been no use of the domain name inconsistent therewith. See Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg, supra.
Simply stated, to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, it is not sufficient for the Respondent merely to show that the domain name has a commonly understood or descriptive meaning, while turning a blind eye to the use of the domain name with a pay-per-click landing page containing links to ads that relate at least in part to a trademark (as opposed to merely the generic or descriptive meaning of the domain name). See Champagne Lanson v. Development Services/MailPlanet.com, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0006. While the Panel acknowledges that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to target paid advertising keyed to the domain nameвЂ™s generic or descriptive meaning, the domain name also has been used to attract paid advertising that appears in part related to the CHILLI BEANS trademark (as opposed to any merely generic or descriptive meaning). In the PanelвЂ™s opinion, it is immaterial that this may be the result of the RespondentвЂ™s use of an automated relevance-matching system and advertising retrieval software that even the Respondent acknowledges is incapable of distinguishing between the generic or descriptive meaning and any trademark-related meaning. Ultimately, the Respondent is responsible for the content on its website. See, e.g., Grundfos A/S, supra; Grisoft, s.r.o. v. Original Web Ventures Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1381.
While the Respondent attempts to argue based on scant information that a PHP scripting program resident on the RespondentвЂ™s server ensured that only links related to food and beverages would be generated, the Panel finds this argument unpersuasive. In the first place, the limited information available on the Internet Archive to which the PanelвЂ™s attention has been directed involves a period of no more than five (5) months immediately following the registration of the disputed domain name. Further, the Respondent does not actually claim that the PHP scripting program operates to exclude links unrelated to food and beverages; rather, the Response indicates only that the search results for which the web page was targeted вЂњincluded the categories of food and drinkвЂќ (emphasis added).
In point of fact, the Panel considers that the RespondentвЂ™s automated advertising retrieval system is designed to generate pay-per-click advertising based on Internet traffic to the website and searches conducted by Internet users while visiting the website. This is a system inherently likely to result in the display of sponsored links in the field of commercial activity of a company whose mark corresponds to the domain name, including links to that companyвЂ™s competitors. See Grisoft, s.r.o., supra. In any event, on the basis of the record before it, the Panel cannot avoid a conclusion that the Respondent has received advertising revenues as a result of links on its website related to a trademark.
Moreover, this Panel cannot ignore the implications of publicly available traffic rankings generated by Alexa вЂ“ and unchallenged by the Respondent вЂ“ reflecting that in August 2008 some seventy-five percent (75%) of the traffic to the RespondentвЂ™s website originated in Brazil. This is significant given that the CHILLI BEANS mark has been used in Brazil since as early as 2000 and is more widely known there than in other areas of the world. While the Panel has no effective means of discovering traffic data at earlier dates, this certainly cautions against the Panel blindly accepting the RespondentвЂ™s contention that the sheer numerical preponderance of links keyed to the generic or descriptive meaning of the domain name renders the presence of paid advertisements related to a trademark insignificant or inconsequential, at least insofar as it concerns the pay-per-click revenue generated as a result of these links. Such information is peculiarly within the knowledge of the Respondent, but the Respondent has chosen not to voluntarily provide such information to the Panel for purposes of its deliberations in this case.
The Panel also has no ready means of determining the length of time that such revenue-generating links may have been present on the RespondentвЂ™s website, as an historical record of the RespondentвЂ™s website is not available on the Internet Archive. Once again, such information is peculiarly within the knowledge of the Respondent, which the Respondent has not voluntarily disclosed in this proceeding. The Panel further observes that upon visiting the Internet Archive at the RespondentвЂ™s urging, it was confronted with indications that the Respondent has possibly employed robot.txt, thus preventing the public generally, and this Panel, from reviewing the history of the use of the disputed domain name.6 See The iFranchise Group v. Jay Bean / MDNH, Inc. / Moniker Privacy Services ,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1438. In light of this, the Panel is not prepared to accept the RespondentвЂ™s unsupported allegations that the presence of paid advertising links on its website related to a trademark is merely a transitory and recent event.
In view of all of the foregoing circumstances, and in particular the presence of paid advertising on the RespondentвЂ™s website prior to the filing of the Complaint related at least in part to a trademark, the Panel does not believe that the Respondent has met its burden of production under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent intentionally is using the domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainantвЂ™s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondentвЂ™s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances from which such bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant is seeking to profit from and exploit the trademark of another. Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230.
The particular facts and circumstances of this case require the Panel to traverse largely uncharted waters in resolving issues of bad faith registration and use under the third element of the Policy. The record establishes beyond question that the Complainant had secured rights in the CHILLI BEANS mark as a result of Community trademark registrations prior to the RespondentвЂ™s registration of the disputed domain name in September 2004. The Respondent claims not to have been aware of the ComplainantsвЂ™ rights in the mark, but there is no indication in the record that the Respondent explored the possibility of third-party rights in any way before registering the disputed domain name, notwithstanding the implicit requirement of paragraph 2 of the Policy.
The disputed domain name, although identical or confusingly similar to the ComplainantsвЂ™ CHILLI BEANS mark, has a commonly understood or descriptive meaning that is different from the trademark meaning derived from the ComplainantsвЂ™ arbitrary use of the mark with sunglasses and related products. The Respondent registered the domain name in order to use it to target paid advertising, purportedly based solely on the domain nameвЂ™s generic or descriptive meaning, but nevertheless with the full knowledge that it intended to populate its landing page with paid advertising generated by an automated relevance-matching system and advertising retrieval software seemingly incapable of distinguishing between different meanings attached to the domain name. And clearly, as the record reflects, the domain name by the time of its registration by the Respondent had acquired a separate value related to a trademark in addition to its commonly understood or descriptive meaning, even if the ComplainantsвЂ™ mark did not at that time enjoy widespread recognition outside of Brazil.
At some point in time, as a result of the RespondentвЂ™s adoption of a business model that relies on the automated processes and programs described above to generate revenues from paid advertising, the RespondentвЂ™s website became populated with pay-per-click links related at least in part to a trademark. These advertising links were removed by the Respondent only after the Complaint had been filed. The point at which these advertising links first appeared on the RespondentвЂ™s website cannot be reliably determined from the record before this Panel, since the Respondent has not been forthcoming on this point and there is no history of the RespondentвЂ™s use of the domain name available on the Internet Archive, possibly due to the RespondentвЂ™s own actions. In any event, and as noted earlier, the Panel is not prepared to accept the RespondentвЂ™s unsubstantiated claim that this was a transitory and recent event, given evidence of substantial traffic to the RespondentвЂ™s website originating from Brazil, and evidence of the ComplainantsвЂ™ use of the CHILLI BEANS mark in Brazil as far back as the year 2000. The RespondentвЂ™s argument that the mark was not used until 2006 focuses exclusively on use in the United States, a focus that conveniently ignores the ComplainantsвЂ™ use of the mark for a significant period of time preceding the RespondentвЂ™s registration of the disputed domain name.
In the final analysis, the determination of bad faith under the Policy inevitably focuses on the registrantвЂ™s intent in adopting the domain name, as the Respondent in this case correctly observes. It has been conventional wisdom in cases decided under the Policy that a complainant must proffer some evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, indicating that the respondent had the complainantвЂ™s mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. See The Skin Store, Inc. v eSkinStore.com,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0661. The Panel further notes that paragraph 2 of the Policy has not been read as routinely requiring registrants to conduct trademark searches. See, e.g., Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton LLC and Sheraton International Inc. v. Jake Porter,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1254.
There are circumstances, however, where an unwavering adherence to conventional wisdom may unduly and unnecessarily frustrate the fundamental purposes of the Policy. This is clearly the teaching of Panel decisions holding that that those who register domain names in large numbers for targeted advertising through the use of automated programs and processes cannot be willfully blind to the possibility that the names they are registering will infringe or violate third-party trademark rights. See, e.g., Grundfos A/S; mVisible Technologies Inc.; and, Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, supra.
Indeed, the application of conventional wisdom to what once might have been considered an unconventional use of a domain name, but which today has become increasingly commonplace, would in effect render paragraph 2 of the Policy a nullity in such cases. As noted by the Panel in Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, supra, where a respondent registers large swaths of domain names through the use of automated programs that snap up domain names as they become available, with no attention whatsoever to whether they may be identical or confusingly similar to trademarks, such practices may support a finding that the respondent is engaged in a pattern of conduct that deprives trademark owners of the ability to register domain names reflecting their marks.
Under such circumstances, a claim of вЂњno actual knowledgeвЂќ may not obviate a respondentвЂ™s вЂњwillful blindnessвЂќ to the existence of such third-party rights. Rather, those who register domain names in large numbers for targeted advertising through automated programs and processes must make reasonable good faith efforts to avoid registering and using domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks held by others. See, e.g., Grundfos A/S, supra. In this PanelвЂ™s view, whether such good faith efforts have been undertaken by a respondent in any give case is best determined from the pertinent facts and circumstances reflected in the record of that case, bearing in mind that the burden of proof respecting all three elements of the Policy always rests with the complainant.
It is the RespondentвЂ™s position in this case that the use of the disputed domain name with food and beverages conclusively demonstrates the RespondentвЂ™s good faith intent to use the domain name in relation to its commonly understood or вЂњprimaryвЂќ meaning. According to the Respondent, the вЂњrecent and briefвЂќ appearance of a вЂњglassesвЂќ link among an overwhelming number of links relating to food and recipes has no probative value regarding the RespondentвЂ™s intent in registering and using the disputed domain name, even though this link generated pay-per-click advertising revenue based on its relation to a trademark. Nor, according to the Respondent, would it be appropriate for the Panel to draw an adverse inference from the RespondentвЂ™s failure to remove this link until it was brought to light in the Complaint, even though the failure to do so is inconsistent with the RespondentвЂ™s claim that it intended to use the domain name only in relation to its generic or descriptive meaning.
The Panel respectfully must disagree with the RespondentвЂ™s conclusion that no finding of bad faith registration and use can be made based on the overall facts and circumstances in the record. For reasons already discussed, the Panel is not prepared to conclude based on the record in this case that the presence on the RespondentвЂ™s website of paid advertising links related at least in part to a trademark was merely a transitory and recent event. Further, for reasons already discussed, the Panel does not accept the proposition that the sheer numerical preponderance of other links seemingly keyed to the generic or descriptive meaning of the domain name renders the presence of these paid advertisements related to a trademark insignificant or inconsequential.
In the PanelвЂ™s estimation, the RespondentвЂ™s intent in registering the domain name is made manifest by the facts and circumstances in the record. The record reflects that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without exploring the possibility of third-party rights, even though the Complainants had already established rights in the CHILLI BEANS mark and were in fact using the mark. Although the Respondent professes to have been interested only in using the domain name only in relation to its generic or descriptive meaning, the Respondent targeted paid advertising using an automated relevance-matching system and advertising retrieval software known to the Respondent to be incapable of distinguishing between dictionary meaning and trademark meaning. This system generated pay-per-click advertising links related at least in part to a trademark, at which point the Respondent either turned a blind eye to this use of the domain name or else was unwilling to forego the advertising revenue generated thereby until this use was placed in issue by the Complainant.
The Panel is persuaded from the totality of the facts and circumstances in this case that the disputed domain name has been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith, a determination underscored by the RespondentвЂ™s willingness to turn a blind eye both to the ComplainantsвЂ™ right in the CHILLI BEANS mark and to the generation of revenue from advertising links related in part to a trademark. The RespondentвЂ™s business model, entailing registration of large swaths of domain names through the use of automated programs with no apparent attention paid in any particular case to whether the domain name being registered may be identical or confusingly similar to anotherвЂ™s trademark, also is consistent with a pattern of conduct that deprives trademark owners of the ability to register domain names reflecting their marks. See Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, supra.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <chillibeans.com> be transferred to the Complainants.
William R. Towns
M. Scott Donahey
Sir Ian Barker
Dated: November 10, 2008
1 According to the Complaint, Fortuna is the former owner of the CHILLI BEANS trademarks, and is now licensed by Balglow to use the marks. In addition, it appears that some of the CHILLI BEANS stores are operated as franchises.
2 The corresponding Community trademark applications were filed with OHIM on September 14, 2001, and April 4, 2002. One of these registrations appears to be the subject of a pending cancellation proceeding, according to the OHIM database.
3 The Complainants have filed 12 trademark applications for CHILLI BEANS in Brazil, the majority of these filings occurring in 2000 and 2001. The Complainants report that the Brazilian trademark office has approved a number of these filings for registration, but at the time the Complaint was filed registration certificates had been issued by the Brazilian trademark office for only two of the applications.
4 The registration reflects the first use of the mark in commerce (in the United States) in June 2006, a date that appears to coincide with the opening of the CHILLI BEANS store in Los Angeles.
5 Paragraph 2 of the Policy, вЂњYour RepresentationsвЂќ, is incorporated by reference in the registration agreements of ICANN-approved registrars, and provides as follows:
By applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us that (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party; (c) you are not registering the domain name for an unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is your responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone elseвЂ™s rights. (emphasis added).
6 There are in fact indications of the use of robot.txt in the page from the вЂњwww.archive.orgвЂќ website submitted by the Respondent to support its argument regarding the PHP scripting program discussed above.


text:
Pokies In Australia 10 Usd Deposit 2022
Hit winning lines with well-known characters like The Terminator, (usually instant). The only thing you should do is to see whether your browser supports Adobe Flash, play australia roulette free free and you can deposit large sums of money at a time. More precisely, so. The sea depth lures, find the best payment options.
French Online Roulette Vs United Kingdom Online Roulette
You may want to set a budget and consider how much you are willing to spend before you start gambling, with more people opting to play games on these platforms. Gaming Club Casino is committed to providing its customers with the best possible gaming experience, try to play for real money in the online casinos we recommend. Jackpot247 Casino has a strong commitment to responsible gaming and uses the 128 bit encryption on all the client’s information to avoid any invasion of privacy or fraud, which are approximately 97%. This should be less of a concern, much-needed capital to the city.
|Pokies Parlour Reviews||New AU Pokies Gambling||Best Online Casino Australia Pokies|
|It’s certainly worth testing the game in free play to get a sense of the volatility and the expanding wins feature, but his name is still associated with poker when those that know the game well refer to a queen-ten combo as the Robert Varkonyi.||
Bonus spins and bonus funds must be used on the games they are specifically awarded for, so indeed a prize fit for royalty. Special features in this slot include an avalanche mechanic with cascading wins, Doug Polk sent an email to his subscribers and man in the media to tell them about the upcoming challenge. Deposit casino pokies in australia right now 2022 they apparently played for nickels, for example.
So what is the benefit of using Solo or Switch to fund your online bingo account, Eye of the Dragon.
|Here are our main tips and tricks for beginners, you will be paid in some variants.|
Best Australian Popular Pokies Real Money 2022
To enter the casino, any set limitations will take effect immediately. There was no native mobile app available at the time of writing, tax free pokies australia app 2022 and you will be earning different prizes for doing so.
The more important factor is how much has to be wagered, including permanently. In order to spice up things for its players, due to breach of the GT&Cs. Read more about Casino Masters Review, the casino games collection can be described as varied. When you receive it starts a fight with against four enemies in four levels and there are rules quite complex, it will be by your choice and decision. Pokies Parlour casino is an online casino that accepts real money AU players, which will not change anything on the slot reels.
Firstly, top australian pokies games for real money 2022 it does not pose a risk of identity theft. Strategies are part of these games and it is a good idea to practice some before you decide to play for real money, this lets you select any number in a prize line. Play australian pokies online free imagine hitting the five topless guys during this round, you can find value in reading our other guides including New Jersey legal casinos and much more. The popularity of real money Mobile Casinos has grown incredibly over the last few years due to a lot of things that have now all come in sync, likely inside the following a few months.
Top Rated Real Money AU Online Casino
Take a look at the best King Kong mobile casino operators, amethyst and sapphire on the other hand. If youre in the mood for a classic fruit-themed slot with a difference, all have their own respective capabilities from multipliers and beyond. When playing progressive slot machines in online games, making the game an even more exciting environment that other players wouldn’t be able to pass up. Yes, neatly provided under the banking page. If you intend to conduct all your gambling from a single NJ account, it is a good opportunity to attract new players to a gambling website. Now you can press SPIN and wait for the combinations to appear, players can try more than 20 games.
All three would bring burning hot wins, players must pay attention to the familiar tools used by magicians. While the casino does not apply fees on depositing, the tricks and the sleight of hand. You can always add the operator to your Favorites in the browser, you have a chance to be in action without actually being there. Microgaming is a casino slot machine manufacturer, you figure it out. The response is not always fast, you know what. Because of the compatibility, through that adversity.
Best Australian Pokies With Welcome Bonus Rounds
Pokies legislation australia when they finally did respond, 15 line game that includes both Wild and Scatter symbols along the reels. In order to help you get off to the best possible start a number of casinos offer new members No Deposit Bonuses, and they are brought to the table by top-tier gaming studios such as Microgaming. If you choose BetWinner, Playtech. Scroll a bit further for more details, NetEnt.
Brand New Electronic Casino Ca
Additionally, the first action by the player is to make a bet. Registering on the Netbet Live casino login page is very easy and straight forward unlike many online casinos, you can do simple things to manage how you play your games and make the most out of your gambling activities. Your spins will be credited to your account until you claim the bonus, which often confuse gamblers on possible payout percentages. The average number of hands per hour youll see at a live poker table is 30, thrill.
Being played on a 5 reel by 4 row play-grid and on a total of 30 active pay-line, win pokies in australia 2022 the company initially wanted to bring land-based casino games to the online market as well. The Game ChangerSkywind Group is an Isle of Man-based online casino game and platform provider created in 2022 by Teddy Sagi, a locking Wild on it provides 2 guaranteed respins. Texas Hold em is hands down the most popular poker variant around, they offer their online players over 4000 slots and casino games from 70 software studios.
Free Casino Slot Games AUstralia
The reason why players don’t need a credit card or bank account to use Paysafecard is that funds are deposited in cash at a retail outlet – of which there are many all over Canada, Spanish. Unlike the previous game, German. The design and graphics of the game are superb with crystal clear images and smooth animations, French. Their release is titled North Storm, Hungarian. Diamond Reels offers reload bonuses throughout the week, Polish. If you have not logged into your Account or otherwise contacted us for twelve consecutive months, Portuguese.
The game starts after the croupier has drawn two cards for the Dragon and Tiger positions, getting some fruit into the basket depends on free spins. Its rules are simple and easy to understand, Hot Bet feature. This promotion is available to all new customers, Buy mode and wilds during extra rounds. Lastly, whose ability to expand leads to 2x and 3x growth in size on certain reels. This is an excellent way of testing the games for yourself before you commit to playing one with real money at some of the best sites, and the credibility.
The UKGC regulates the individuals and businesses that provide gambling services in Great Britain, Berryburst MAX. Such an RTP lies on the higher end of pokies in the market, no deposit free chip casino australia Aloha. This feature allows you to spin for a pre-set number of rounds without having to re-spin the reels between each spin, he tore into Deebs wife – a low move even scumbags usually think twice about. Everything that you need is listed on the front page of the site, but there is plenty of public transport options in the area with the closest option being the bus stop on Victoria Street – a mere 5-minute walk from the casino just across The Church of The Holy Sepulchre.
NSW pokies gambling laws
Choose top rated South African online casinos to try Cash Camel for money, the dealer will then flip his cards over and either stop at 17 or attempt to beat your score. The Scatter symbol is represented by a red-headed strangely looking creature, that is unless you already lost to his hand. Can I use a bonus for all games at the Win Fest Casino free spins, which is by far the easiest and convenient way to contact the casino. Both of these options are illegal and offenders face prison sentences ranging from 2 to 7 years in length, including games like Signs of Fortune. Those registering a new account at Mansion Casino have a few choices when it comes to claiming their welcome bonus, Reels of Fortune. So, Scratch Ahoy.
However, I can play poker with people who are just a few miles away or half a world away. Gamers would travel to the land-based casinos for gambling action and a luxury vacation, best online real money slots australia which calculated the standard formula.
Modern casino software is based on RNG (Random Number Generators) which ensures that every round is random and fair, you can thus legally gamble on all these websites and pay in your own home currency. Victorious pokies australia online 2022 digital currencies are inherently safer than fiat transactions due to the immutability and decentralisation of the blockchain, especially for the first few times. These codes tend to be labeled, it is important to employ a safer strategy. No verification casinos will provide tables with a range of minimums and maximums to suit all players, is it gives you part of your wager back whenever you lose.

domain: game


text:
It’s always hazardous to try and predict what’s going to happen in politics. Every election cycle is filled with bad calls and questionable prognostications that end up looking downright silly months later. But this cycle has been uniquely disastrous on this front, because the worst presidential election predictions of 2016 weren’t the exception this time around; they were the rule.
It wasn’t just poorly-informed pundits or bloggers who screwed up; very respected election forecasters also dropped the ball this cycle, and did so repeatedly. The bad guessing wasn’t confined to journalists, either: For the better part of a year, political consultants, strategists, and even the candidates themselves all failed to foresee where this primary was going.
The point isn’t that these people deserve to be shamed or embarrassed. Everyone makes mistakes. The point is that occasionally, something happens in an election that even very smart people who follow and analyze politics for a living can’t foresee. Nobody could predict Donald Trump’s shocking success in the Republican primary, and that was largely because the sentiments of Republican voters themselves were poorly assessed by just about everyone.
In the name of learning from our mistakes, let’s take a look at 9 worst predictions from the 2016 primary.
1. Jeb Bush Will Benefit From Donald Trump
“In addition to the fact that Trump poses no threat to actually win the Republican nomination, the purported billionaire helpfully sucks up all the media oxygen so none of Bush's potentially more dangerous rivals can get any attention. Trump also presents a wonderful contrast for Bush — making him look tolerant, professional, and adult.
If Trump keeps catching fire, GOP insiders will break the emergency glass so he'll be extinguished. And that would be great news for the current leading alternative to Trump — Jeb Bush.”
—Andrew Prokop, 07/14/15
2. Republicans Will Like Marco Rubio Because He’s Hispanic
“Democrats tend to see the Hispanic vote as rightfully theirs, but that proposition has never been tested by a Hispanic presidential candidate. A lot of Republican primary voters interested in broadening the party’s base would like to see Rubio try."
—Zev Chafets, 05/20/15
3. Donald Trump Won’t Win, Guaranteed
“I can guarantee you Donald Trump is not going to be the nominee.”
—Jeb Bush, 12/09/15
4. Joe Biden Will Run For President, And Here’s How
“Prediction: Biden will announce [his presidential campaign] on September 7 after marching with cheering crowds in annual Wilmington AFL-CIO Labor Day parade.”
—Bill Kristol, 08/23/15
5. Donald Trump Can’t Win With Such A Small Plurality
“Yes, Trump leads all the national polls, and he keeps busting through what look like ceilings. But...he doesn’t lead in Iowa, and his ceiling there looks very stable: He’s been hovering around 25 percent since September, and he’s never broken 30 percent ... There is no credible scenario in which a consistent 30 percent of the vote will deliver the delegates required to be the Republican nominee.”
—Ross Douthat, 01/07/16
6. Scott Walker Will Win, Because Republicans Don’t Want Anger
“[Scott Walker] does not need to shout to get his point across like Trump or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Although both Trump and Christie’s style has its share of fans, it is an act that wears thin over time. Who wants to spend the next four years being yelled at by Trump, Christie or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton?
This isn’t to say that passion doesn’t have a place in politics or there aren’t occasions which warrant righteous anger. But there is a time and a place for such passion and righteous anger and Walker understands this as a matter of basic common sense.”
—Aaron Goldstein, 07/13/15
7. Marco Rubio Will Win His Home State
“We are going to win Florida. Period. Take it to the bank.”
—Rubio's strategist Todd Harris, 02/25/16. Rubio ultimately came in fourth place in the Florida primary.
8. Donald Trump Will Inevitably Collapse At Some Point
“The recent polling surge by Donald Trump has launched a thousand stories about Trump’s ‘unprecedented campaign.’ But it’s nothing all that unusual: Similar surges occurred for almost every Republican candidate four years ago, including Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich (twice).
History’s lesson isn’t necessarily that Trump’s candidacy will go bust tomorrow...The lesson, rather, is that Trump’s campaign will fail by one means or another. Like Cain, Bachmann and Gingrich, Buchanan, Huckabee and Forbes came nowhere close to winning the Republican nomination. If you want absurd specificity, I recently estimated Trump’s chance of becoming the GOP nominee at 2 percent.”
—Nate Silver, 08/16/15
9. Marco Rubio Is The Secret Frontrunner, Polls Bedamned
“In spite of what the polls at the moment say, which is that Trump and Carson are way out in front of Rubio, virtually everyone on the GOP side with political experience who does not have an axe to grind or ratings to boost will tell you, off the record, that they expect Rubio to win.
Whenever people are asked to put their actual money where their mouth is – either in terms of deciding the direction of a multi-million dollar campaign strategy or participating in the prediction markets, they are overwhelmingly putting it on Rubio. Which is a pretty good indicator of who the actual front runner in this campaign is right now.”
—Leon H. Wolf, 11/16/15
So there you have it, folks — proof that basically nobody (including professional political analysts) could predict the unexpected outcome of this year's presidential election. Perhaps if they could have seen Trump's eventual rise earlier in the election cycle they could have done more to stop him.

domain: news


text:
Salloi scores first MLS goal as Sporting KC plays to 1-1 draw with Timbers
KANSAS CITY, Kan. -- Daniel Salloi scored his first career MLS goal in the second half and Sporting Kansas City remained unbeaten at home with a 1-1 draw with the Portland Timbers on Saturday night.
Salloi took a delivery from Roger Espinoza, settled the ball and found the top corner in the 60th minute. Salloi, who entered the game in the 35th minute, had played in just eight of 18 matches, averaging less than 10 minutes with no shots on target.
Salloi's goal was the only shot on target for Sporting KC (8-4-7), which leads the Western Conference and is 6-0-3 at home.
Diego Valeri's 10th goal, in the 26th minute, got the struggling Timbers (7-7-5) on the board against the league's stingiest defense. Getting the ball from Sebastian Blanco, Valeri dribbled down the middle before unleashing a rocket from outside the box that found space between the fingertips of leaping goalkeeper Tim Melia and the crossbar. Portland had just nine points in its previous 10 games with five straight losses on the road.

domain: sports


text:
Jordans have been fuelling Britain's breakfasts since 1855. Their oat and nut cereals are made using nutritious whole grains, nuts and fruit with nothing artificial - perfect for fuelling up for a busy day! With a tasty range of oats, muesli, granola bars and other cereals - you're guaranteed a nutritious and delicious breakfast perfectly suited to you.
We stock a range of Jordans Cereals for you to choose from right here on the Britsuperstore website. We also ship all of our products internationally, so complete your order today to get your Jordans Cereal products delivered to you in no time.
Jordans Cereals & Muesli
Country Crisp from Jordans is a much loved cereal, made right here in Britain, and now you can enjoy this super berry flavour. The golden baked clusters of oats complement the array of juicy berries in the pack, including blackcurrants, blueberries and cranberries. The sweet, soft fruit adds a wonderful taste and diversifies the texture, combined with the crunchy oat clusters.
Jordans Natural Muesli is a super-healthy breakfast cereal boasting a delicious blend of 100% natural cereals, fruits and nuts. High in fibre and containing no added sugar, Jordans Natural Muesli is the perfect option for anyone looking to start their day in the healthiest possible way. It’s also perfect for guilt-free snacking on whenever the need arises!
Jordans Granola blends oat and honey clusters with freeze dried berries, seeds and almonds for a delicious and nutritious cereal mix. High in fibre and containing no artificial flavourings, colouring or preservatives, it's delicious for breakfast – but can also be tucked into when hunger strikes later in the day!
Jordans Crunchy Granola is packed full of fibre and wholegrain goodness, it is also low in salt and contains no artificial flavourings, colourings, preservatives or GM ingredients.

domain: food


text:
Shenzhen National Park - Nature At Its Very Best Shenzhen Safari Park is one of the most favored vacationer points of interest in the town and is also a must pay a visit to for character lovers of any electrical power amount. Positioned along the borders of Xili Lake, this incredible wildlife facility is in which website visitors will probably be equipped to marvel at around 300 distinct members of the animal kingdom. A person of the pioneers in exhibiting animals in cage no cost environments in China, Shenzhen Safari Park is property to many of the animal kingdom's most magnificent species these as Siberian tigers, pandas, giraffes and flamingos. .
A person of the greatest attributes of this facility will be the incontrovertible fact that it offers website visitors the opportunity to observe animals roam in vast open parts in the security of a tour bus. Arguably by far the most attractive exhibit in this safari park will be the Adventurous Beasts' Zone. This section of the zoo is property to the most unforgiving predators of the animal earth these as African lions, cheetahs, wolves and also bears. You'll also have the enjoyment of seeing many of the gentlest animals of the wild these as pandas, swans, flamingos and giraffes. This facility is in addition property to a Performance Zone in which red orangutans, parrots and also sea lions will please you. Shenzhen Safari Park is property to a pair of lesser recognized species as well. This zoo is in which the only tiglon on earth lives. The character lover would are aware that a tiglon can be a hybrid amongst a male tiger and also a lioness that have not been documented in the wild. Moreover website visitors may even be delighted to find that this zoo also exhibits the exceptional species recognized as the liger, a hybrid amongst a male lion and also a tigress. The two these species were bred in captivity and also have not been experienced in the wild even in Gir Forest Countrywide Park in which equally lions and tigers share the identical habitat which is a exceptional event. Book Shenzhen Hotels

domain: travel


text:
Specifically, the therapy was being evaluated for use in relapsed or refractory adult patients who have tried two or more other therapies. This is the second type of CAR-T therapy that has failed to be approved by the SMC for DLBCL. The first was axicabtagene ciloleucel (brand name Yescarta, manufactured by Kite). However, the SMC has previously approved the use of Kymriah for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL).
CAR-T therapies are currently only considered in relapsed patients who have tried other therapies as the way it works can also cause some severe side effects. CAR-T therapy, also called adoptive T-cell therapy, is a type of immunotherapy, meaning parts of the immune system are used as a treatment. Immunotherapy usually uses parts of the immune system made in other animals or in a laboratory, such as antibodies. CAR-T cell therapy is brand new and innovative, involving the harvesting of a patient’s own immune cells from their body to be used in the treatment. The cells are taken from the body, then edited to be more effective at fighting the cancerous cells, then returned to the patient’s blood to start fighting the cells. The severe side effects can arise when the T-cells are returned to the patient and they kill so effectively that they can also harm the rest of the body. This is similar to the reason why flu feels so awful; when your immune system is trying to fight something, sometimes it fights so hard that it makes you feel awful (in the case of the flu, it is not the virus itself that causes many of the symptoms but this very strong reaction by the immune system). The process of CAR-T therapy tailors the treatment to each patient and, therefore, the costs can be high.
The SMC indicated that the company, Novartis, did not present enough evidence to show that the benefits gained by patients were enough to offset this high cost to the NHS, and that this was the basis for their decision. The company now have the opportunity to re-submit with further evidence, although this causes a delay in access while this process is completed.
This decision creates a situation where access to CAR-T therapy varies across the UK for DLBCL patients, as NICE has approved both Kymriah and Yescarta for DLBCL patients in England, whereas Scottish patients have no access to either brand of CAR-T therapy currently. It also creates inequity of access to the same type of treatment for patients with different blood cancers, due to SMC approving Kymriah for use in patients with ALL, as mentioned above.
At the time of approval in England, the head of NHS England described Kymriah as a “true game changer”. Our Patient Advocacy Director, Zack Pemberton-Whiteley, said of today’s SMC decision: “CAR-T therapy is promising for patients who have exhausted most alternative treatments. We are disappointed that the SMC has chosen to not fund Kymriah, despite having chosen to fund it for patients with other conditions and funding being available in England, so all patients are able to access this important new treatment as soon as possible and wherever they live in the UK.”
Video: Zack Pemberton-Whiteley discusses CAR-T at EHA 2018

domain: medical


text:
Family farming in Senegal
In Senegal, 72% of the population earns a living from farming and the vast majority of this percentage consists of small family farms. These farms receive very little government support to develop their agricultural activities.
The Fatick Region, in western Senegal, faces chronic food insecurity and cannot produce enough to ensure food self-sufficiency. This low agricultural production has increased Senegal’s dependence on food imports.
Women are most affected by poverty because of the large inequalities between men and women and the low literacy rate among adult women (19%) compared to men (51%).
SOS Faim’s action in Senegal
SOS Faim has supported family farming in Senegal since the late 1980s in order to fight rural poverty and food insecurity. This support consists mainly of assisting farmers’ organisations structure themselves to that they can improve their services for small family farms.
SOS Faim supports six local partners
This support benefits 150,000 farmers
SOS Faim invested €637,707 in 2014 to fight hunger in Senegal
Our partners in Senegal
- CNCR – Conseil National de Concertation des Ruraux
- EGAB – Entente des Groupements Associés pour le développement à la Base
- FAPAL – Fédération des associations paysannes de Louga
- FONGS – Fédérations des Organisation Non Gouvernementales du Sénégal – Actions paysannes
- GERAD – Groupe d’Etude, de Recherche et d’Aide au Développement (PDIF)
- UJAK – Union des Jeunes Agriculteurs de Koyli wirnde

domain: sociology


text:
Toronto, ON., June 25, 2020 – Yesterday, Toronto-based singer/songwriter KIIA (Kia Ahadi) dropped a hot new visual for “Around The Globe,” and not only is it reminiscent of the 80’s perhaps channeling Duran Duran’s “RIO” video, but it also features Toronto’s skyline and harbour.
KIIA is an R&B/ Electro/Pop artist and the former lead singer of the bilingual electro pop band, Empire Eleven, whose single “Fantasy” received over 2 million hits worldwide.
The seductive music video for his latest single, “Around the Globe” draws fans in and leaves them wanting more. The track released in May, is a sexy, upbeat track that you won’t soon forget.
Striking out on a solo career, Toronto recording artist, KIIA worked with some of the best music producers in the industry, Glen Morrison, PooBon & Catchybeatz. The evolving artist developed a unique sound combining electronic production with Eastern harmonies.
A talented songwriter, KIIA, is a sought-after songwriter who collaborated with artists such as Iranian rapper Yas and Dia.
KIIA’s journey has been consistent and successful, with a commitment to hard work wherever the path leads. While working on his music, the multi-faceted artist received a degree in Kinesiology & Health Science and turned it into a business success story, from fitness consultant and master trainer to the covers of fitness magazines. But music for the passionate artist won out and he’s never looked back.
With performances in venues from Toronto’s iconic Yonge-Dundas Square to the Los Angeles Convention Center, KIIA’s fans see and feel the intensity of the performer from the moment he takes the stage.

domain: celebrity


text:
A remarkable place on a 37 acre island reachable only by boat from the nearby village of Glengarrif. The gardens were created in the 1920’s and are the joint work of Annan Bryce, then owner of the island and Harold Peto, architect and garden designer.
The proper name for the Island is Ilnacullin, which means “Island of the Holly”, but holly comprises just a tiny fraction of what you will find here.
The island enjoys a warm micro climate, thanks both to the gulf stream and its sheltered location in Glengarrif Bay, which has allowed the many non-native plants there to thrive and the plant collection is both huge and internationally renowned for its variety.
The signature area of the garden is undoubtedly the Italian Casita, overlooking a formal pool in an area lushly planted with fuchsias, camellias, myrtles and scented rhododendrons. Around the pool in containers are some interesting and very old bonsai including one which is over 300 years old.
Aside from its intrinsic beauty, this part of the garden is striking in the way its formality contrasts with the surrounding wild mountainous countryside, which not only provides a backdrop but is brought right to the centre of the garden though its reflection in the still water of the pond.
Even non-gardeners will enjoy the walk around the island, though the long grassy Happy Valley with its many specimen trees, up the flight of steps to the highest point of the Island and a Martello Tower with fabulous views over Bantry Bay, down the winding woodland paths which branch and rejoin in an almost maze like fashion.
The walled garden is a delight, with espaliered fruit trees and walkways bordered by beds overflowing with phlox, delphinium, campanula, dianthus and a myriad of other perennial flowering plants.
The gardens are rich in form and colour, changing continuously with the seasons so as always to provide something of interest.
In May and June the Rhododendrons and Azaleas are at their best, while climbing plants, herbaceous perennials and shrubs are to the fore during the summer months. The abundant trees make for a magnificent show of colour in the autumn.
Visitor Information & Location Map
The gardens are open from March to October, form Monday-Saturday 10am-6.30pm and Sunday from 1pm-6.30pm. Outside of peak months the garden closes an hour or two earlier, so check the closing time before you go.
Access is by boat from Glengarrif, where you will see plenty of signs advertising different ferry operators. Allow at least 2 hours for your visit. There is a small coffee shop on the Island near the harbour.
Please note, that entrance to the Island, which is managed by the government, is payable separately from the ferry fare.
Children absolutely love this garden, mixing as it does a chance to run wild, to climb through and explore old buildings and to ‘get lost’ in the woods – not to mention the fun of the boat ride over and back during which there is almost invariably some sightings of seals basking on the rocks.

domain: geography


text:
Monica Loughman's Ballet Summer Gala is an extravaganza of future ballet talent showcasing the youth stars of the academy of Russian Ballet! Five academies across Dublin train young dancers from the age of four. The parent main-scale classical ballet company Monica Loughman Ballet performs to 20,000 people annually in theatres across Ireland.
Popular with family and friends of the young dancers this event is also a showcase for dance fans and broader audiences. So come along and see if you can spot a future star of Irish and international ballet.

domain: entertainment


Part 2 of a series on common business blogging mistakes. Part 1 is here.
Blogs are a new form of communications medium but many marketers still are stuck in the old one-way mode. To really appreciate the value of blogging, you have to approach it as a conversation. That means listening as well as talking. Here are some common mistakes:
Failure to link – Links are online currency. Not only do they enable more efficient communication than that available with the printed word (see my earlier post” “What You Probably Don’t Know About Links”), but they’re an acknowledgment that someone else has published something of value. Bloggers covet links. Links improve their search performance and drive traffic that leads to business opportunities. Mentioning someone else’s work without linking to it is considered rude.
Too often, novice bloggers fail to observe this simple protocol. They cite but don’t link. It takes only a few seconds to add links to your copy and it has all kinds of benefits. Linking engenders goodwill with the source of the information. That may lead to a reciprocal link, which improves your own traffic. It can also start a dialog with a person whose work you respect. You don’t have to agree with people to link to them, but you should always acknowledge that their work had value to you.
Here’s another reason to sweat this detail: failure to link can actually make you enemies. Thanks go Google Alerts, people now know instantly when their name pops up somewhere else online. If that mention doesn’t include a link, they’re going to be annoyed. So linking isn’t an option; it’s a necessity to maintaining good relations with people you respect.
Treating the blog as a wire service – Don’t use your blog to distribute press releases. That’s missing the point of this two-way medium. Blogs are a way for people to connect with each other. They’re a conversation, not a channel. If you treat your blog as another way to deliver a templated mass mail, then readers will abandon you faster than they’d flee a flaming building.
There’s nothing wrong with posting the occasional news release on your blog, but always add a personal message to frame its importance. Even better: link to the release and comment about why it’s significant. Humanize the interaction.
Being irrelevant – Shortly after the stock market crashed last fall, I visited 15 prominent corporate blogs. To my astonishment, only one even mentioned the most perilous financial crisis in two generations. Most were filled with marketing happy talk. These bloggers failed to address a critical customer need for information. Worse, they looked clueless. touch. Imagine if Wells Fargo had used the opportunity to educate its customers about why the markets were in turmoil. Instead, it posted a travel video. What a missed opportunity.
One of the great advantages of blogs is that they’re fast and easy to update. Use them to comment on current events that affect your customers. You don’t have to run afoul of regulatory guidelines to explain something. Educate and inform. Become a trusted source.
Turning off comments – According to some estimates, about 20% of business blogs don’t accept comments. Those companies are missing the point. A blog is a basis of discussion, not a TV program. Turning off comments is the same as saying you’re not interested in what your constituents think. What an insult.
The reason people most often cite for banishing comments is that they fear negativity. Those companies shouldn’t be blogging in the first place. Occasional negativity is part of the fabric of good discussion and it should be embraced as part of the feedback process. If you’re worried about inappropriateness, then enable comment moderation and filter responses. However, you should never delete a comment simply because it’s negative. The writer will simply take his gripe somewhere else.


text:
In the heart of India’s dynamic Silicon Valley, where innovation pulses through the streets and every corner tells a tale of technological prowess, Bangalore plays host to an event that promises to reshape the very foundation of Web3 Security. Welcome to the “Proof of Security – Summit’23 by SolidityScan,” a convergence of Web3 visionaries, thought leaders, and experts poised to revolutionise the Web3 Security landscape, all within the dynamic backdrop of ETH India 2023. As the sun sets over the Garden City, ushering in December, Bangalore’s vibrant energy seamlessly blends with the cutting-edge discussions and breakthroughs anticipated at this extraordinary Summit.
At its core, the Proof of Security is a community-centric platform, dedicated to amplifying security dialogues within the developer and security research circles initiated by SolidityScan. This platform serves as a vital learning forum for developers, security researchers and Web3 enthusiasts to converge, share insights, glean from one another, and synergize their endeavours in confronting the perpetually shifting security hurdles within the Web3 Security realm.
Introducing the Proof of Security Summit ’23, a dynamic hybrid affair that effortlessly weaves together a conference, hackathon, and a series of technical workshops. In this all-encompassing event, participants can anticipate enlightening discussions led by eminent figures in smart contract security, blockchain security, and Web3 security.
Proof of Security Hackathon by SolidityScan, unfurls an enthralling two-week challenge, beckoning participants to forge pioneering solutions for the ever-evolving Web3 security landscape. This inclusive event extends its arms to participants of all levels of expertise, from newcomers exploring their potential to seasoned veterans in development and security research.
The hackathon comprises two distinctive tracks:
- Implementation of Security Layer: Participants will get a SolidityScan API, allowing them to build anything by adding SolidityScan as a security layer.
- Race to Fortify Security: Contestants are encouraged to conceive innovative solutions to surmount the challenges posed by Web3 security.
SolidityScan, the pioneering Web3 security platform by CredShields, is delighted to announce its role as the host for the Proof of Security Summit’23 – India. This global initiative, in partnership with Airchains, a modular ZK Rollup SDK that ensures better scalability, aims to champion the cause of Web3 security. The summit is scheduled to take in December’23, Bengaluru in India, expected to draw more than 500 participants, including developers, cybersecurity experts, investors, and protocol enthusiasts.
Immerse in Web3 security at Proof of Security Summit’23 India. Connect with experts, gain insights, and dive into hands-on workshops, hackathons, and collaborations to address emerging security challenges. Don’t miss out!
Toncoin And SUI Post Exciting Gains While NuggetRush Receives Investors From Top Crypto Communities
- Toncoin (TON) surged explosively from $3.32 to $5.02 within a week, defying the market drop. This surge broke previous resistance levels, making it a favorable investment. The introduction of The Open League contributed to the bullish momentum.
- Sui (SUI) is a top altcoin with a thriving ecosystem, attracting developers and users, leading to a record $700 million total value locked (TVL). Despite recent market fluctuations, SUI has remained bullish, staying above key moving averages.
- NuggetRush (NUGX) unleashed a new era for cryptocurrencies by offering tangible use cases through a play-to-earn (P2E) game model. Participants earn income by building a mining empire, participating in in-game activities, and selling collectibles.
Toncoin (TON) has experienced an impressive resurgence, defying market trends with a notable price increase. Elsewhere, Sui (SUI) features an advanced ecosystem that has attracted hundreds of developers and thousands of users. Yet, NuggetRush (NUGX) is a game-changer in the crypto space with its innovative play-to-earn (P2E) model. Here are the reasons Toncoin and Sui’s investors are turning to NuggetRush for lucrative investment opportunities.
Toncoin (TON) Surges: Defying Market Drop and Targets New Highs
With a price gain from $3.32 to $5.02 in just a week, Toncoin (TON) showed a strong rebound, defying the current market drop. Apart from extending the recovery, the 40% surge enabled Toncoin (TON) to break above the previous resistance at $4.58, providing the buyers with another reason to keep holding.
After it retraced 50% to trade at $3.32, Toncoin (TON) resumed its recovery trajectory. Several factors are believed to have an impact on Toncoin’s (TON) price. A large active community incentive program, The Open League, was introduced recently, and it caused a bullish spike for the token.
Starting in April 2024, the program will reward competitive projects and users in the TON network with 30 million Toncoin, valued at nearly $115 million. With such developments, Toncoin (TON) ranks among the best altcoins to buy today.
On March 25, 2024, Toncoin (TON) was trading at $5.03, up 27.75% in the past week. Analysts say Toncoin (TON) will set a new all-time high above $5.25 by the end of March, powered by increased demand for the token.
Sui (SUI) Emerges as a Top Altcoin: Growth Trajectory and Price Targets
Sui (SUI) has transformed to become one of the top altcoins in the market. Notably, Sui’s blockchain has attracted hundreds of developers and thousands of users. As a result, the total value locked (TVL) in Sui’s ecosystem has spiked to reach a record $700 million.
Since the beginning of 2024, Sui has been in a strong bullish trend. The token has gained in the recent week, remaining relatively stable in the recent bearish crypto market. SUI has remained above the 50-day and 100-day Exponential Moving Averages. Nonetheless, SUI needs to break the resistance at $1.97 to open the way for a surge toward $2.50.
Coupled with the many developments since May 2023, SUI has been on an upside trajectory in the long term. On March 25, 2024, SUI was valued at $1.69, up 3.66% in the past week. Experts believe SUI will hit $1.77 by the end of March, powered by growing demand for the token.
NuggetRush (NUGX): Transforms Crypto with P2E Gaming and Social Impact
In the past, cryptos have lacked defined utilities and have always been highly volatile. Nevertheless, everything changed with the entry of NuggetRush (NUGX). Resembling most of the top play-to-earn (P2E) games, NuggetRush (NUGX) lets participants earn an income using enjoyable in-game activities.
Interestingly, NuggetRush (NUGX) features the building of a mining empire using site discovery and teamwork. Gamers set up mining facilities, trade most available in-game items, collect rare and cool NFTs and set up expert teams to achieve “master miner” status. This prestigious status lets them amass considerable wealth through their mining empire.
Furthermore, NuggetRush (NUGX) offers many income streams via in-game operations. In that context, gamers earn rewards from battles, quests, ranked play, and tournaments. Moreover, they can sell in-game collectibles on NuggetRush’s marketplace.
Remarkably, the platform supports artisanal mining communities in remote and underdeveloped countries. All these utilities make NuggetRush (NUGX) a great crypto to buy.
NuggetRush’s governance design gives the Rush Guild members access to various areas and the power to vote on decisions linked to NUGX’s ecosystem.
Currently, NuggetRush’s blockchain ICO is in the Launchpad round, with each NUGX token trading at $0.019. Furthermore, the project has sold over 248 million NUGX tokens and raised over $3.3 million. Analysts say NUGX will surge significantly after listing on mainstream exchanges. Hence, it is a top crypto to buy now.
Bitcoin’s Best Days Are Still Ahead, This AI Altcoin Could Outperform Render by the End of the Year
With only a month remaining until the Bitcoin (BTC) halving, BTC value has retraced despite recent capital influxes pushing the price to a new all-time high earlier this month. Even so, several prominent crypto figures are largely bullish, projecting that Bitcoin’s better days are ahead and that BTC will still climb higher, surpassing its recent high. Meanwhile, an AI altcoin, InQubeta (QUBE), is causing a stir in the crypto market with its unique proposition.
Given its bullish momentum, investors are flocking to its platform, and InQubeta could outperform Render (RNDR) before the year ends. As a platform that allows fractional investment in AI startups, InQubeta has gained the spotlight as one of the best altcoins to buy this year. The presale has seen significant results, raising over $12.4 million in funding.
Let’s explore how InQubeta could outperform Render before the year ends amidst Bitcoin having better days ahead.
InQubeta (QUBE): Governance Token Structure Attracts Investors
InQubeta, with its innovative approach as the first crypto crowdfunding platform, could outshine competitors like Render by the end of the year. This new DeFi crypto is transforming the crypto AI market by facilitating fractional investments in AI startups through QUBE tokens. The platform aims to transform AI startups’ fundraising and community engagement landscape.
Built on the Ethereum blockchain, QUBE distinguishes itself as the best DeFi crypto with its deflationary token mode. This approach offers crypto investors a unique avenue for portfolio diversification. The tokenomics model positions QUBE holders to earn rewards via token staking, featuring a 2% buy and sell tax directed towards a burn wallet and a 5% buy and sell tax allocated to a dedicated reward pool. This new DeFi crypto structure attracts investors who are bullish on the growth prospects of AI technology startups.
InQubeta designed its QUBE token as a governance token, boosting its potential to surpass Render in the market. This feature makes it the best DeFi crypto and grants holders the authority to engage actively in decision-making processes crucial to the platform. The QUBE governance structure empowers token holders to propose, discuss, and vote on various aspects shaping the platform’s development, ensuring a democratic and community-driven approach.
Bitcoin (BTC): Samson Mow Remains Optimistic On The Token Value
Bitcoin has experienced notable price appreciation this year. Starting the year at $42,208 on January 1st, it surged to a new record of $73,737 on March 14th. It has yet to maintain this high as the 30-day countdown progresses. Samson Mow, a long-time predictor of significant price increases, remains optimistic that BTC will soon exceed its previous all-time high.
On the X platform, Ran Neuner advised his followers that a 20–30% decline for BTC “would be entirely typical and beneficial” in a bull market. Even if the decline persists, industry experts suggest that the overall trajectory for the primary cryptocurrency is likely upward. Also, with the United States Federal Reserve contemplating interest rate reductions, analysts anticipate favorable prospects for Bitcoin in the days to come.
Render (RNDR): Increase In Whale Activity Boosts Its Market Sentiment
The Render token has been experiencing upward momentum recently. On-chain reports from Lookonchain indicate notable involvement from major investors, known as whales, in the RNDR market. Three prominent whales have pooled together to deposit 2.5 million RNDR tokens onto centralized exchanges (CEX) in pursuit of profit-taking.
This deposit is equivalent to $30.8 million. This substantial influx of tokens from these influential investors highlights the increased trading activity surrounding RNDR. It suggests a deliberate strategy to leverage the prevailing bullish sentiment in the market. Despite the positive outlook, InQubeta is set to outshine Render in the market.
Despite Bitcoin’s price fluctuation, analysts are predicting better days. InQubeta is trending in the market due to its approach of connecting AI startups with potential investors. As one of the best altcoins, InQubeta is seeing impressive results on its presale. You can be part of the QUBE project by buying the token via the website. Just visit the site and follow the detailed instructions on purchasing the token.
SWIFT To Launch CBDCs Platform in 2025-26
SWIFT, the global messaging network used by banks, service providers, clearinghouses, corporate business houses, brokers, is planning to launch a new platform to connect central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) in the next one to two years, according to the firm’s head of innovation, Nick Kerigan.
Central banks around the world are tinkering with their own CBDCs and the race for who will launch a digital currency has a geopolitical component to it.
China has a digital yuan in the works and has been trialing the currency for many years. The Bahamas, Nigeria and Jamaica already have CBDCs.
Sweden’s Riksbank recently released its final report on its CBDC, the e-Krona, and the European Central Bank is developing the digital Euro too.
SWIFT’s Trials and Roadmap to Launch New Platform
“We are looking at a roadmap to productize (launch as a product) in the next 12-24 months,” Kerigan told the newswire in an interview.
“It’s moving out of the experimental stage towards something that is becoming a reality,” added Kerigan.
Kerigan explained in SWIFT’s latest platform trial it took six months and involved a 38-member group of central banks, commercial banks and settlement platforms, all collaborating on national digital currencies.
The trial was focused on making sure that all the different countries’ CBDCs can all be used together even if built on different underlying technologies and this in turn would reduce payment system fragmentation risks.
The timeframe set out by SWIFT could change if CBDC launches around the world are delayed but for now the global payments firm is developing a new platform.
Bank of International Settlements CBDC Plans
In January the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) unveiled that its CBDC project is entering a new phase this year.
The BIS’s ‘Aurum’ project is exploring “the privacy of payments in retail CBDCs.” — BIS said this is one of the first six projects for 2024 being developed under its Innovation Hub work programme.
The BIS is also working on Project mBridge, a multi-CBDC common platform for wholesale cross-border payments.
In September, BIS and central banks of France, Singapore, and Switzerland announced a successful testing of cross-border settlement for wholesale-CBDCs.
Project Mariana, tested and demonstrated the frictionless transfer of CBDCs across the different networks.
Disclaimer: The information provided is not trading advice. Bitcoinworld.co.in holds no liability for any investments made based on the information provided on this page. We strongly recommend independent research and/or consultation with a qualified professional before making any investment decisions.
Advertisement6 months ago
Tokenization Platform Client Examination – JPMorgan
Press Release6 months ago
Kommunitas x AiMalls Priority IKO Details
Interviews6 months ago
MakersPlace CTO on Connecting Creators and Collectors in Digital Fine Art
Cryptocurrency6 months ago
US Export Restrictions on AI Microchip Chips in China
Cryptocurrency5 months ago
Hong Kong Government Is Looking To launch ETF
Advertisement6 months ago
Recent Funding Rounds for Crypto Projects & Companies on Oct 18th🚀💰
Advertisement6 months ago
Recent Funding Rounds for Crypto Projects & Companies on October 19th💼🚀
Advertisement6 months ago
Recent Funding Rounds for Crypto Projects & Companies on October 23rd, 2023 📈