In the recent domain name dispute decision of Kate Hudson v. Fei Zhu FA1290319 (Nat. Arb. Forum, December 8, 2009) a three member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.katehudson.com. Kate Hudson is the famous actress who has been in countless movies, and according to the decision has used her name commercially since 1999.  Respondent registered the domain in 2006 and  failed to respond to the Complaint.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel noted that Kate Hudson did not have a federal trademark registration for her name, but reviewed the information provided to determine if she could establish secondary meaning in her common law rights. The Panel found that she had established those rights through continuos and extensive commercial use that predated the registration of the domain.  The Panel determined that the disputed domain was identical to the KATE HUDSON mark.

Moving to the second element, rights or legitimate interests, the Panel explained that Kate Hudson made out a prima facie case under this section of the Policy. As a result the Panel concluded that since the burden shifts to Respondent and Respondent failed to provide a response, then there was no evidence suggesting any rights or legitimate interests.

In addrrssing the final element, bad faith, the Panel noted that the disputed domain resolved to a parked web site with unrelated third-party links and adult oriented links. This was found to be bad faith, in and of itself. For these reasons, the Panel’s analysis stopped there.

Ultimately, the Panel found that all three elements were shown and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Vaga-lume Midia Ltda v. Kevo Ouz d/b/a Online Marketing Realty FA1287151 (Nat. Arb. Forum, December 7, 2009) a three member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.vagalume.com. Complainant runs a Brazilian based web site about music, since 2002, located at www.vagalume.com.br and www.vaga-lume.com.br. Respondent is a domain name entrepreneur who admits to registering domains of common or descriptive words. The disputed domain was purchased by Respondent in December 2007.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel provided a split decision, with only two of the Panelists providing the majority opinion. In addressing the first prong the Panel explained that Complainant provided a Brazil  trademark registration certificate for VAGALUME and design. The Panel concluded that the there was letter-by-letter coincidence of the disputed domain and the mark.

The Panel next addressed the second element, whether the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the domain. The Respondent argued that the term vagalume means firefly in Portugese. The Panel however noted that Complainant’s use of the mark is not descriptive and instead was arbitrary. Respondent claimed he registered the domain due to its high traffic, but the Panel noted he failed to provide any evidence of this traffic being a result of common nature use of the term. Instead the Panel noted that results of an Alexa.com search showed that over 91% of the visitors to the disputed domain originated from Brazil. Next the Panel addressed the actual control and use of the domain, and this is where the Panel began to chastize Respondent:

As also shown by Complainant, after having received service of the present complaint, Respondent manually modified the parameters governing the generation of ads appearing on the website at the disputed domain name, from ads almost related to music to generic ads. This shows that Respondent always could and did control the contents of his website (“pay-per-click” links), which deprives of any credibility Respondent’s contention that he did not did not select the links, and that they were auto-generated by Yahoo and Parked.com. Respondent’s manual change of the ads parameters, following his having received service of the complaint, was hidden until Complainant revealed it in its additional submission. This shows that when Respondent registered the disputed domain name he was targeting Complainant’s mark to extract income from pay-per-click links precisely aimed at Complainant’s audience and traffic. Only after having been served with the complaint, did Respondent use his ability to manually control the contents of his website at the disputed domain name, and posted texts explaining that VAGALUME means “firefly”, in an obvious attempt to justify – ex post facto – his having chosen the disputed domain name. All this does not reveal a use of the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4.c.i., or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4.c.iii.

The Panel then moved to the final element, bad faith. The Panel explained that bad faith requires knowledge or awareness of the mark. This knowledge or awareness is a responsibility for those who own large portfolios of domains. This willful blindness concern was addressed by Respondent who claimed that he conducted a search for the trademark on the USPTO site prior to purchase. Additionally, the Respondent claimed that a U.S. resident should not be obliged to search the records of all foreign trademark offices. The Panel disagreed with this view, noting that since the domain was a Portugese word, a search in Brazil would have been necessary. The Panel went on to explain:

Additionally, the Panel notes that Respondent’s remarks that he had no knowledge of the Complainant or its trademark prior to the instant dispute are contradicted by the uncontroverted circumstantial evidence discussed above.  Respondent’s prevarication regarding his prior knowledge of the Complainant and its common law trademark, as well other apparently disingenuous statements made in his pleadings, is additional independent and sufficient grounds for finding bad faith registration and use.

The Panel does not stop the bleeding there, as they then discuss the three prior UDRP cases which Respondent lost on default. As a result the Panel stated:

While Respondent observes that in all such cases he was in default, the Panel cannot but speculate that an experienced domainer like Respondent may have considered that its case was indefensible. In any event, there is no evidence that Respondent has challenged any of these decisions before a court, as it was his right under the UDRP. Respondent cavalierly considers such cases to be a “few UDRP losses”. The Panel believes that those cases demonstrate that Respondent had engaged “in a pattern of such conduct” when he registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting the VAGALUME mark in a “.com” domain name, which is a circumstance of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy § 4.b.ii.

The reasons for ruling against Respondent did not stop there, though. The Panel criticized Respondent for changing the parameters of the pay per click links on his web site after receiving notice of the dispute. The Panel found that this showed Respondent had control of the web site all along and that since this is an experienced domainer “it is unlikely if not absurd to find that he was unaware of exactly how the parking page worked and that he could manipulate it.”

Ultimately, the Panel found that all three elements were satisfied and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

DefendMyDomain Commentary: There is a very long and well thought Dissent opinion. The Panelist takes a careful approach at noting that there are issues on both sides, but that the Complainant just did not provide evidence sufficient for a finding that satisfied all the elements. The dissenting Panelist instead challenged that the decision should not be based on supposition and conjecture. Take the time to read this dissent to get an understanding of just how different Panelists can view a specific case.  We believe the Domainers are going to have a real problem with this decision, but the current UDRP system remains.

In the recent cybersquatting domain dispute of Frederick’s of Hollywood Group Inc. v. Blue Water LLC FA1290927 (Nat. Arb. Forum, December 3, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over ten domains. Complainant, uses the marks FREDERICK’S OF HOLLYWOOD and FREDERICK’S related to its women’s clothing and lingerie business since 1946. Complainant maintains a web site at www.fredericks.com. Complainant has a specific third party affiliate program, allowing fees to be paid to authorized third parties for directing traffic to Complainant’s official site. The affiliate policy specifically restricts the use of misspelled domains. Respondent registered one of the domain in 2003 and the other nine in 2006. According to the decision, all of the disputed domain names resolved to Complainant’s web site.        

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel began its analysis, noting that Frederick’s of Hollywood has sufficiently shown its rights to the marks. The Panel found that the domains contained minor changes which were not sufficient to distinguish them from Complainant’s mark.

Additionally, one or more of the following changes were made in each disputed domain name to the mark (1) the addition of one extra letter; (2) the transposition of two letters in the mark; or (3) the replacement of one letter in the mark with another.  The Panel finds that these changes are insufficient to overcome the confusing similarity that arises from using Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. 

The Panel found the domain were confusingly similar to Frederick’s marks.  

Moving to the second element, the Panel noted that Frederick’s presented a prima facie case, and despite the lack of response from Respondent, it would still review the record. Complainant contended that Respondent was not licensed to use the marks. Additionally, the Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domains. The Panel found that Respondent’s attempt at profiting from Complainant’s affiliate program using these typosquatted domains was not a bona fide use. Additionally, the act of typosquatting was found to be evidence of lacking rights or legitimate interests. The Panel found that this second element was satisfied by Complainant.

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel noted that the disputed domains began to be registered nearly forty-five years after Frederick’s established trademark rights. The Panel explained that since the disputed domains resolved to Complainant’s own web site, that consumers would be confused as to affiliation or control. Additionally, since the domains contained typographical errors, this was evidence of bad faith. Lastly, by violating Complainant’s affiliate program, this was also evidence of bad faith.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all of the elements, and ordered all ten domains be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc. v. Ronald Robinson FA1290206 (Nat. Arb. Forum, November 25, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.hardrockpoker.net. Hard Rock is the well known chain of Hotels, Casinos and Restaurants that are all over the world. They have been in business since 1978 and have trademark rights to the HARD ROCK mark. Hard Rock maintains several website located at www.hardrock.com, www.hardrockhotels.com, and www.hardrockpoker.com. Respondent registered the disputed domain in May 2009 and failed to respond to the disputed domain.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel addressed the first element, noting that Complainant established rights in the HARD ROCK mark through multiple registrations of the mark. The Panel found that the disputed domain merely added the descriptive word poker, which was not different enough from the mark.

Moving to the second element, the Panel found that Hard Rock presented a prima facie case, shifting the burden to Respondent. Although the Respondent failed to respond to the complaint, the Panel chose to review the record anyway. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii). Additionally, the Panel noted that the disputed domain resolved top show banner advertisements and links to gaming web sites. For this reasons, the Panel determined this was not a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i).

When discussing the last element, bad faith, the Panel noted that the domain was hosting links to advertisements for gambling web sites. The Panel inferred that Respondent was attempting to disrupt Hard Rock’s business by competing directly. Additionally, it was determined that Respondent was receiving click through fees from the links and profiting from the confusion.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Hard Rock proved all three elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Ville de Paris v. Jeff Walter WIPO D2009-1278, November 19, 2009, a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.parvi.org. Complainant is the City of Paris, France, who claims ownership of two French trademark registrations from 2002 for PARVI (for communications by computer terminals) and PARVI PARIS VILLE NUMERIQUE (for computerized file management and communications by computer terminals). Respondent registered the disputed domain in June 2006. The background story of this case involves a series of communications between the parties regarding Respondent’s use and continued ownership of the domain. Essentially, the Respondent contended he registered the domain with no knowledge of Paris’ PARVI marks and instead picked the word because it meant “small” in Latin and was to be used for a social networking site. Paris even acknowledged that he lacked the intention of causing confusion when he registered the domain. Apparently, sometime later Respondent then changed his mind and was going to run a web site dedicated to open source software projects. The resulting domain dispute occurred.

Generally, paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In the instant case however, the Panel took some liberties and has made some interesting interpretations of the Policy and prior case decisions.

First, the Panel quickly dispelled with the first element, noting that it was identical to Paris’ PARVI trademark. The Panel also quickly rolled through the second element, noting that the word parvi is not Latin for small, but instead the correct word is parvus. The Panel found that Respondent failed to show demonstrable preparations for the domain and thus lacked any rights or legitimate interests.

The Panel spent most of the decision discussing the third element, registration and use in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a)(iii) states that Complainant must prove that Respondent’s “domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” The Panel explained that recently many decisions have reviewed the interpretation of this policy paragraph to mean something slightly different then it has been applied. The Panel explained:

The Policy expressly states that the Paragraph 4(b) scenarios are “without limitation” – that is, the Policy makes clear that there can be other scenarios that are also evidence of registration and use in bad faith. It follows, therefore, that the Policy expressly recognizes that the Paragraph 4(a)(iii) requirement of bad faith can, in certain circumstances, be satisfied where the respondent has used the domain name in bad faith, even though the respondent may not have been acting in bad faith at the time of acquisition of the domain name.

The Panel attempted to justify its findings, based upon a hypotheical:

There seems no reason in logic or in principle why the availability of redress should be confined to situations where bad faith is present at the time of acquisition of the domain name. To limit the trademark owner’s redress in this way would result in outcomes that make no sense. In particular, it would mean that even the most damaging abuse of a trademark right through the most egregious bad faith use of a domain name would be immune from remedy under the Policy so long as the registrant was not acting in bad faith when the domain name was acquired. It would, in short, give a “green light” to good faith domain name registrants to later abusively use their domain names, safe in the knowledge that any such bad faith use could not provide the basis for a successful action under the Policy.

The Panel found that Respodent probably did not register the disputed domain with the intention of benefitting from Pari’s PARVI mark, but this did not end the decision.

The Respondent’s decision to change the intended use of the disputed domain name to a use that could cause confusion with, and disruption to, the Complainant’s activities, and the Respondent’s demand that the Complainant provide it with an option to acquire the Complainant’s domain names, were actions by which the Respondent sought to use its registration of the disputed domain name to derive a benefit from the Complainant’s trademark.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all three elements, and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Life Extension Foundation, Inc. v. PHD Prime Health Direct Limited (FA1289603, Nat. Arb. Forum, November 25, 2009) a three member Panel agreed to transfer the domain www.lifeextensionfoundation.com to Complainant. Life Extension Foundation maintains web sites at www.lef.org and www.lifeextension.com. As their web site states:

The Life Extension Foundation is the world’s largest organization dedicated to finding scientific methods for addressing disease, aging, and death. The Life Extension Foundation is a non-profit group that funds pioneering scientific research aimed at achieving an indefinitely extended healthy human lifespan. The fruits of this research are used to develop novel disease prevention and treatment protocols.

 Our law firm represented Life Extension Foundation in this dispute, so we will refrain from providing our normal commentary. If you would like to know more details please read the decision (here).

In the recent domain name dispute decision of SAP AG v. Harrison Barnes (WIPO D2009-1298, November 18, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.sapcrossing.com. Complainant, SAP, is a global provider of business software and maintains a web site at www.sap.com. SAP claims to own over 600 domains with the SAP mark incorporated therein. Respondent, claims to run a job posting web site with industry specific jobs for each site. Respondent claims to have over 140 web sites with each being industry specific and adding the suffix “crossing” at the end of the domain. It appears as though Respondent’s main web site is www.employmentcrossing.com. Respondent registered the disputed domain in October 2007.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel noted that SAP proved it was the owner of trademark rights in SAP and was a recognizable source of IT related services throughout the world. The Panel concluded that the use of a well known trademark, namely SAP, with the descriptive term “crossing” was confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

Moving to the second element, Respondent argued that he was offering bona fide services to job seekers. The Panel explained:

There is no doubt that Respondent is entitled to use its “EmploymentCrossing” domain name to attract potential employers or employees interested in SAP software. It may also be legitimate to refer to the company SAP in the course of communications between interested parties. In the Panel’s view it is however a different matter to use the SAP trademark in the Domain Name itself, particularly in the dominant first part of the Domain Name and in doing so to acknowledge that such reference is to the company SAP. That is, to use the SAP trademark as an indication of product or service origin, in circumstances in which it is acknowledged that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way and has not been authorized by Complainant to use the SAP trademark.

The Panel concluded that SAP proved the second element. Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel rejected Respondents arguments that job seekers looking for jobs that require SAP proficiency merit its use of the term in the domain name. For these reasons, the Panel found that Respondent registered the domain in bad faith.

Ultimately, the Panel found that SAP proved all three elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of The Office Club, Inc. and Office Depot, Inc. v. Name Holding Company c/o Name Holding FA1287148 (Nat. Arb. Forum, November 16, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.officedpot.com. Complainant, Office Depot is the well known office products retailer and has used the OFFICE DEPOT mark since 1986. Office Depot maintains a website at www.officedepot.com. Respondent registered the disputed domain in May 2000 and failed to respond to this dispute.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel noted that Complainant established rights in the OFFICE DEPOT mark. The Panel explained that the disputed domain differed from the mark only in that there was no space and the domain had removed the second letter “e” from the word. The Panel found this to be too close and thus confusingly similar to the OFFICE DEPOT mark.

Moving to the second element, the Panel noted that Office Depot presented a prima facie case, b ut still reviewed the record in consideration of the elements. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain. Additionally, the disputed domain resolved to a web site where links to competitors were presented. This was considered to not be a bona fide offering of services. As a result, the Panel found Office Depot satisfied the second element.

The Panel analyzed the last element, bad faith, the Panel found that Respondent’s web site was disrupting Office Depot’s business by its competitive activity. Additionally, since Respondent was presumably commercially benefitting from the competing products and services, this was an intentional creation of likelihood of confusion.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Office Depot proved all three elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of APPLE INC. v. Fusion Media Ltd. FA1288071, (Nat. Arb. Forum, November 18, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.ipodnano.com. Apple needs no introduction, nor should an explanation of the iPod be needed. If you are so curious and have been living under a rock though, please go to www.ipod.com or www.apple.com. Respondent registered the disputed domain in September 2005 and failed to respond to the dispute.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN UDRP Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel examined the first element of the Policy, noting that Apple had sufficient rights and trademark registrations for the IPOD mark. It found that the addition of the word “nano” created a confusing similarity to Apple’s IPOD mark since it has an obvious relationship to the products sold. The Panel found that Apple satisfied this element.

Moving to the second element, the Panel explained that Apple presented a prima facie case, but decided to review the record anyway. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain. Additionally, the Panel explained:

Complainant argues that Respondent’s <ipodnano.com> domain name resolves to a website soliciting Internet user’s personal information, presumably for marketing leads, by offering a “giveaway” of ipod nanos.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website soliciting personal information by promising a “giveaway” of ipod nanos, presumably for financial gain, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

As a result, the Panel found that Apple satisfied the second element. The Panel, in addressing the last element, bad faith, explained that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain intentionally caused a likelihood of confusion. Additionally, Respondent commercially benefitted by gaining marketting leads through the web site. For these reasons, the Panel found this third element was satisfied.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Apple proved all three elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Mary Kay Inc. v. Open Water Enterprises Limited c/o Louis S FA1286701 (Nat. Arb Forum, November 12, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.mayrkay.com. Complainant Mary Kay is the well known manufacturer and distributor of body care and cosmetic products, with rights dating back to 1963. Complainant owns the mark MARY KAY and operates a web site at www.marykay.com. Respondent registered the disputed domain in 2003 and failed to respond to the Complaint.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel recognized the trademark registrations for the MARY KAY mark and found that Complainant’s rights were established under Policy paragraph 4(a)(I). The Panel found that the disputed domain was a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark MARY KAY, with the r and y letters transposed. For this reason, the Panel found that MARY KAY satisfied the first element.

In addressing the second element, whether Respondent had any rights or legitimate interests in the domain, the Panel explained:

The relevant WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Open Water Enterprises Limited c/o Louis S,” and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is otherwise commonly known by the <mayrkay.com> domain name.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)….Respondent’s <mayrkay.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring click-through links and advertisements for Complainant’s competitors in the body care and cosmetics industry.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s competitors, presumably for financial gain, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)….Respondent’s <mayrkay.com> domain name qualifies as typosquatting, given the transposition of two letters in the MARY KAY mark.  As such, Respondent’s attempt to capitalize on the typographical errors of Internet users constitutes evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel explained that Respondent had been involved in other prior UDRP proceedings and a pattern of bad faith registration has been established. Additionally, since the web site resolved to promote MARY KAY competitors via click-through links, it disrupted Complainant’s business. Further evidence of bad faith was from click through fees presumably generated from these links. Lastly, the Panel found that Respondent engaged in typosquatting.

For all these reasons, the Panel ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.