In two recent domain name dispute decisions, Mattel, Inc. v. Bladimir Boyiko (Nat. Arb. Forum, FA1290718, Dec. 16, 2009) and Mattel, Inc. v. Domain c/o VO (Nat. Arb. Forum, FA1289791 Dec. 15, 2009) two separate three member Panels were faced with disputes over www.wwwhotwheels.com and www.hotwheels.org. Mattel is the well known toy company responsible for the HOT WHEELS die cast cars. HOT WHEELS were first sold in the U.S. in 1968. Complainant operates web sites at www.hotwheels.com and www.mattel.com. Both Respondents failed to provide a response to the complaints.

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 the first case referenced above, the Panel recognized Mattel’s HOT WHEELS mark and had  “no difficulty in finding that the Domain Name is confusingly similar” to the mark. Mattel presented a prima facie case, which included an argument that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain. Additionally, as the Panel found, Respondent was using the domain for third party link click through fee generation.  Lastly the Panel noted that the domain was an example of typosquatting. The Panel found that Respondent was involved in other UDRP proceedings and therefore was engaged in a pattern of bad faith.

In the second mentioned case, the Panel also noted that the HOT WHEELS mark was well known throughout the world and that the domain was identical to the disputed domain. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain and that Mattel had presented a prima facie case. Lastly the Panel found that Respondent’s inaccurate or incomplete contact information was evidence of bad faith. Additionally, Respondent’s failure to respond was evidence against.

Ultimately, the Panels found in favor of Mattel and ordered the domains be TRANSFERRED.

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 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 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.

This domain dispute just needed to be discussed based purely on the number of domains at issue. In the recent domain name dispute decision of ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. v. Netcorp Netcorp c/o Netcorp FA1283469 (Nat. Arb. Forum, November 11, 2009), a single member arbitrator was faced with a dispute over 1,017 domains. The arbitrator, James Carmody has been involved with the UDRP for a long time and has decided more disputes then most, but he certainly earned his money sorting through all of these domains in this case. Complainant is the owner of the mark FREECREDITREPORT.COM. We know you have all seen the commercials so we won’t discuss belabor on the background. Suffice it to say they maintain a web site at www.freecreditreport.com. The disputed domains at issue were all registered after Complainant filed its trademark application, but before the mark was registered. Due to the large number of domains at issue we will not reproduce them, but see the decision if you are dying to know.

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.

The Panel explained that the application and subsequent registration of the mark established Complainant’s rights dating back to the application date. The Panel found that Complainant established its common law rights sufficiently to merit protection and moved towards comparing the mark with the disputed domains. The Panel listed 15 separate ways in which the domains were similar to the mark:

(1) adding “ing,” changing the tense of the mark to a present participle; (2) adding the letter “s,” changing the mark from singular to plural; (3) adding a generic or descriptive word to the mark; (4) adding a generic or descriptive word to the mark that has an obvious association with Complainant’s business; (5) adding an abbreviation of a geographic word to the mark; (6) adding a geographic word to the mark; (7) misspelling the mark by changing a letter in the mark to a different letter; (8) misspelling the mark by changing a letter in the mark to a number; (9) misspelling the mark by adding a letter within the mark; (10) adding a letter to the beginning or end of the mark; (11) misspelling the mark by adding a number within the mark; (12) adding a number to the beginning or end of the mark; (13) omitting the period between the first-level domain, “www,” and the mark; (14) changing the generic top-level domain (gTLD) included in the mark from “.com” to “.org;” and/or (15) adding hyphens to the mark.  Any individual disputed domain name typically contains Complainant’s mark and one of these changes.  A few contain a combination of two of these changes.  The Panel finds that none of these differences between the mark and the disputed domain names create distinctiveness and that, therefore, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FREECREDITREPORT.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 

As a result the Panel found that Complainant satisfied the first element. Moving to the second element the Panel noted that Respondent was not commonly known by any of the domains in dispute. Addiitonally, the Panel found that the disputed domains resolved to web sites with links to third party web sites and that this use was not in connection with a bona fide offering. In addressing the argument by Respondent that the disputed domains are comprised of generic words in common usage, the Complainant questioned why the majority of the domains were misspellings of the mark. The Panel found that Respondent was typosquatting. As a result, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied the second element.

Moving to the final element, the Panel found that all of the disputed domains contained variations of the mark, which was evidence of bad faith registration and use. Additionally, since the domains offered links which disrupted Complainant’s business, this was further evidence. Lastly, since Respondent engaged in typosquatting, this was more evidence of bad faith.

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

In the recent domain name dispute of Provide Gifts, Inc. d/b/a RedEnvelope v. Privacy Ltd. Disclosed Agent for YOLAPT c/o Domain Admin FA1286921 (Nat. Arb. Forum, November 9, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.redenevelope.com. Complainant is the well known online gift retailer who maintains a web site at www.redenvelope.com. Respondent registered the disputed domain in August 2000 and failed to reply 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 noted that Complainant had rights to the RED ENVELOPE mark through various trademark registrations. The Panel found that the disputed domain contained a misspelled version of Complainant’s RED ENVELOPE mark which was confusingly similar. The Panel found that Complainant satisfied Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
 
Moving to the second element, the Panel found that Red Envelope presented a prima facie case and that Respondent failed to submit a response. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain, was using the domain to display links advertising third-party web sites in competition with Red Envelope, and engaged in typosquatting. All these factors culminated to a conclusion that Respondent lacked any rights or legitimate interests in the domain. The Panel found Red Envelope satisfied Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

In reviewing the third element, bad faith, the Panel began by explaining:

…Respondent intended to disrupt Complainant’s business and take advantage of Complainant’s goodwill surrounding its mark by displaying third-party links to Complainant’s competitors in the online retail industry for upscale gifts.  The Panel therefore finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). 

The Panel also relied on another bad faith factor and explained:

Additionally, Respondent has created a substantial likelihood of confusion as to the source and affiliation of the <redenevelope.com> domain name and the corresponding website.  Respondent benefits from such a likelihood of confusion, as it receives referral fees for the competitive upscale gifts advertisements that are displayed to the diverted Internet users.  The Panel finds this to be adequate evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 

The Panel didn’t stop there noting that the typosquating also qualified for proof of bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

Ultimately, the Panel found that Red Envelope satisfied all elements of the ICANN UDRP Policy  and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Netflix Inc. v. Domain Name (FA1287000, Nat. Arb. Forum November 9, 2009), a single member arbitrator was faced with a dispute over the domain www.netfilx.com. Netflix is the well known online movie rental service and owns multiple registrations for the NETFLIX mark. Netflix operates a web site at www.netflix.com.  The disputed domain was registered on September 27, 1999 and Respondent 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 found that Netflix had established its rights in the mark NETFLIX through its trademark registrations. The Panel noted that the domain was a misspelled version of the NETFLIX mark, where the “i” and “l” were switched. The Panel found that the domain was confusingly similar and that Netflix had satisfied this element.

Moving to the second element the Panel explained that Netflix made a prima facie case in support of its allegations. The Panel chose to analyze the facts presented despite Respondent’s failure to provide a response.

The Panel finds that registrant’s WHOIS information demonstrates that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name….Respondent’s <netfilx.com> domain name resolves to a blank website.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 

Interestingly, the Panel notes that Netflix failed to allege abuse through the misspelling, but the Panel still found this to be relevant in the overall decision. The Panel found that Netflix satisfied this element as well.

Moving to the final element, the Panel found that the disputed domain remained inactive, and that such inactivity was evidence of bad faith. Additionally, the Panel found that the typosquatted version of Complainant’s mark NETFLIX also constituted bad faith. Ultimately, the Panel found that Netflix proved all three elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Gu Bei FA1284140 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 31, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over 33 domains. Disney needs no introduction and appears to have done its homework on going after so many domains at once. Disney maintains a web site at www.disney.com. Respondent 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.

A list of the 33 domains is provided below:
<disneycaliforniaadventure.com>, <disaneychannle.com>, <disanychannle.com>, <disentchannel.com>, <disenychanne.com>, <diseychanell.com>, <disnecanl.com>, <disnenchannel.com>, <disneychaael.com>, <disneychanele.com>, <disneycruiselines.com>, <disneyemployment.com>, <disneyhcannel.com>, <disneyswan.com>, <disneyvacationpackage.com>, <disnneychannnel.com>, <disnycanal.com>, <disnypornland.com>, <dissne.com>, <disyneychannel.com>, <wwdisneychannel.com>, <waltdisneycruises.com>, <toondineyindia.com>, <toondinsy.com>, <toondisneygames.com>, <toondisniey.com>, <toondisnney.com>, <toondysney.com>, <tooondisney.com>, <playhousedisneey.com>, <playhousedisneychannelasia.com>, <plaayhousedisney.com>, and <freedisneyporn.com>

In addressing the elements, the Panel quickly reviewed the facts and applied what appears to be an expected result. Generally, the Panel found that Disney had hundreds of registrations for its family of DISNEY marks and that the domains were confusingly similar to these marks. Most of the domains were misspellings of the marks. The Panel found that Disney made a prima facie case, with the burden shifting to Respondent. Additionally, the Whois information provided no support that Respondent was commonly known by the disputed domains. The Panel found that Respondent was using the domains to display advertising links to third party web sites. The Panel made a finding that Respondent was engaged in typosquatting, causing a finding of no rights or legitimate interests. The Panel also relied on this to infer bad faith, although the Panel also relied on the click-through fees from the links.

This was a pretty standard case, but was worth a note since they were able to get a decision on 33 domains. Ultimately, the Panel ordered all domains be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates – NA NA FA1266499 (Nat. Arb. Forum, July 28, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.abcfinewinesandspirits.com. Complainant is the well known retail store for all things alcohol, including beer, wine and liquor. ABC Liquors maintains a web site at www.abcfws.com. Respondent is the infamous domainer who has over 100 adverse decisions through the UDRP process. Anyone who has tried to find the Whois information using simple Whois search tools for domains owned by Respondent has likely hit the dead end known as Compana LLC. We have previously blogged about this Respondent, but it has been a while, so we figured this would be a good time to revisit a case with this Respondent.

On a procedural level, Respondent argued that it agreed to the transfer of the domain and provided three possible ways which a Panel could proceed which include:

(i) to grant the relief requested by the Complainant on the basis of the Respondent’s consent without reviewing the facts supporting the claims (ii) to find that consent to transfer means that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) are deemed to be satisfied, and so transfer should be ordered on this basis or (iii)  to proceed to consider whether on the evidence the three elements of paragraph 4(a) are satisfied because the Respondent’s offer to transfer is not an admission of the Complainant’s right, or because there is some reason to doubt the genuineness of the Respondent’s consent.

The Panel pointed out that Respondent requested the Panel should follow choice number (1) for the following reasons:

The Respondent further states that the Panel should opt for the first alternative and grant the Complainant an immediate transfer without discussing the merits. The Respondent finds an expeditious decision to be more suited to the facts of the case, as both parties agree upon a transfer. Furthermore, the Respondent evokes arguments of judicial economy as well as Section 10(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), both of which, according to the Respondent, support an immediate transfer.

Interestingly Respondent requested that “it should be given the opportunity to prepare a more formal response if the Panel decides that further analysis is required.” The Panel rejected this request noting “the Respondent was already given twenty (20) days from the date of the commencement of the proceedings to submit such a response.  Had the Respondent wanted to appropriately and fully reply to the Complaint, it would have had more than enough time to do so.”

So the Panel reviewed the arguments presented and decided that it would go through the full analysis of the three elements.

However, alternatively, it may be decided that this expeditious approach would be a way for cybersquatters to avoid adverse findings against them. This is the reason why the Panel, in Graebel Van Lines, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, FA 1195954 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2008), stated that “the transfer of the disputed domain name deserves to be along with the findings in accordance with the Policy.”

The decision by the Panel was fairly consistent with other Panels. The Panel found that the domain was confusingly similar and nearly identical to Complainant’s mark ABC FINE WINE & SPIRITS with the exception of the additional “s” on the end of the word wine. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the domain name and based on the typosquatting it inferred no rights or legitimate interests. Lastly, the Panel found that Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and attempted to create a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain by using the domain.

Ultimately, the Panel ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Lorillard Tobacco Company, Lorillard Licensing Company LLC v. Bao Shui Chen (WIPO D2009-0743, July 16, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.lorilard.com. Complainants manufacture and sell cigarettes in the U.S and in other countries throughout the world. They own trademarks registrations for LORILLARD and maintain a web site at www.lorillard.com. Respondent failed to respond to this dispute.

Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel noted the disputed domain is identical to Complainants’ marks except for the omission of one of the L’s from the word. The Panel found the disputed domain was at least confusingly similar to the marks.

Moving to the second element, the Panel noted that (i) Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain, (ii) there was no evidence of authorization to use it, and (iii) has never asserted any rights or legitimate interests in the domain. Therefore, the Panel found the Complainants satisfied this element as well.

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel explained that the disputed domain spelling of “lorilard” had no independent existence or meaning besides a misspelling of Complainants’ marks. The Panel quoted another decision dealing with typosqautting which stated as follows:

“Typosquatting is virtually per se registration and use in bad faith. It is difficult to conceive of circumstances that would overcome the inference that the typosquatter “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source” of the website. Here such conduct was undertaken to send Complainant’s customers to a site that promoted directly competing services.” (See Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani, WIPO Case No. D2002-0568)

The Panel also found that the Respondent had a history of being found in bad faith with regards to registrations. For these reasons, the Panel found that Complainants satisfied all three elements and ordered the disputed domain be TRANSFERRED.