In the recent cybersquatting case of Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. ll aka Joe Comeau FA1336979 (Nat. Arb. Forum, August 31, 2010) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.DisneyOffer.com. Disney needs no introduction in this case. You should know who they are, unless you have been living in the one or two places where they haven’t been able to advertise or sell products and services. Either way, go to www.disney.com for anything your heart desires. Respondent filed a response to this dispute and presented some interesting arguments.

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 quickly dispensed with the first prong, noting that the DISNEY mark is well established and that the disputed domain contained all of the mark including the additional word “offers.”

Moving to the second prong, the Panel noted that DISNEY had met its small initial burden of proving a prima facie case that Respondent lacked any rights or interests. This included claims that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain. The Panel shifted the burden to Respondent and explained:

Respondent offers no evidence which might tend to show that he has rights in respect of  the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c), or otherwise. Respondent offers no explanation as to why he registered a domain name which overtly references Complainant’s DISNEY trademark and he admits he has not built a website associated with the disputed domain name. Respondent states that the webpage referenced by the at-issue domain name is merely a holding page provided by the registrar, Go-Daddy. Respondent makes no claims regarding any intended use for the domain name.  Furthermore, Respondent makes no claims that he is somehow making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name.

The Panel thus found that this second prong was proven. Moving to the third prong, bad faith, the Panel made some relevant findings. First the Paenl explained Respondent failed to present any justification that he did not register the domain name for any r3eason other then the value of the mark. Additionally, the Panel found that Respondent had registered well known domain names in the past using other marks such as EBAY and CHEVY.

The Panel found that Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain to DISNEY after recieving a cease and desist letter, which was is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(I). Respondent had argued that “If Respondent has to turn over the domain name to Complainant, it should at least in good faith have to give Respondent the renewal fees paid over the past few years.” Other interesting arguments presented by Respondent included:

Just because Complainant holds onto the name “disney” it does not have the right to squash and try to control every other holder of the word “disney” in the English speaking community or every domain name with the word “disney” in it. They own the market and brand name, but they do not own the word “disney” across the entire English language as long as those interests pose no threat or try to infringe upon their business.

Lastly, the Panel found that the disputed domain resolved to a parked site, featuring links to third parties offering competing goods and services. For all these reasons, the Panel found that DISNEY met its burden of proving all three prongs and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In a very interesting decision, a three member Panel appears to stretch the limits of what is acceptable evidence and methodology for UDRP cases. In the case of Ray Marks Co. LLC v. Rachel Ray Techniques Pvt. Ltd. FA1319966 (Nat. Arb. Forum, July 7, 2010) the Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.rachelray.com. Living in the U.S. most of us have all seen on t.v. or heard about Rachael Ray. She maintains a website at www.rachaelray.com  Many would even think this was a slam dunk case for her, since the disputed domain was merely missing a letter. However, Respondent put up a fight and both parties provided additional submissions. As a result the Panel was faced with making some interesting findings.

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.

Some of the relevant arguments presented by Respondent are as follows:

Respondent, Rachel Ray Techniques Private Limited, is a company incorporated in India on July 23, 2009.  Respondent offers products that involve laser ray technology.  Prior to incorporation, Respondent was operated as a partnership that began April 10, 2007….The Complaint misstates the date of the cease and desist letter.  It was sent on February 24, 2010, not February 24, 2009.  This is an attempt by Complainant to mislead the Panel by creating the impression that the letter was sent prior to Respondent’s incorporation on July 23, 2009….Respondent selected the name “Rachel Ray” for its business because the daughter of the technical partner of the original firm was named “Rachel”.  The initial name for the company was going to be “Rachel Lazer Techniques”, but, for reasons related to the practice of numerology, there was a decision to switch to “Rachel Ray Techniques”.

In the decision, the Panel presented the following findings:

Respondent is the owner of the disputed domain name, <rachelray.com>, and the date of creation is September 20, 2001.  The Respondent acquired the name some time later. Respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of India on July 23, 2009, after having been formed as a partnership on April 10, 2007.

With that in mind the Panel reviewed the elements and quickly found that the domain was identical or confusingly similar. The fascinating parts of the decision came during the examination of the second element. The Panel found that the burden was shifted to Respondent to prove it had rights or legitimate interests in the domain. It stated as follows:

Respondent claims to have formed a company in April 2007, which was incorporated in 2009, to market laser-based equipment and other items.  Respondent has supplied the Panel with scads of evidence (Annexes A through W), citing its business name on advertisements, telephone listings, invoices and Indian governmental documents, to support its contention.

However, the Complaint provided evidence that the disputed domain hosted websites that offered Complainants own trademark. Respondent chalked this up to error and lack of control over third party hosting, exclaiming that they are not technical people. Armed with that argument, the Panel made the following statement.

The Panel is presented therefore with competing claims on this issue.  UDRP proceedings provide for only limited evidentiary presentations, and it is difficult for the Panel to make fine assessments as to veracity.  One tool it can employ in this regard is to examine each party’s contentions for consistency.  On this issue, the Panel finds no inconsistency in Complainant’s assertions, whereas there is marked inconsistency with respect to those made by Respondent.  Respondent’s declaration about “not being technical people” is contradicted by Respondent earlier Additional Submission reference to its “technical partner”.  Moreover, that contradiction is heightened by Respondent’s claim to run a business that offers products “using the Technology involving Laser Rays”, which suggests that Respondent’s people must possess fairly sophisticated technical expertise.

Additionally, the Panel found that the lack of proof of sales volume or revenue in connection with products was fatal. Then the Panel turned its attention to the issue of whether Respondent was commonly known by the domain. AS stated earlier Respondents company name specifically includes the domain, but the Panel did not care.

However, it has not escaped the Panel’s notice that the date of Respondent’s origination, April 10, 2007, followed hard upon the date, March 27, 2007, of the USPTO registration of Complainant’s most basic trademark, RACHAEL RAY.  Is this coincidence or design?  Though Respondent is an Indian entity, the miracle of the Internet makes knowledge of such information as USPTO registrations almost instantaneous around the globe, and the Panel must keep in mind that the initiation of the Policy is predicated on the cunning and sophistication of global cyber-squatters. As discussed above, Respondent has provided the Panel with scant evidence of actually conducting business.  Consequently, the Panel cannot conclude that Respondent is  commonly known by that name, as is necessary for application of subparagraph 4(c)(ii).  The Panel believes that that subparagraph requires more than evidence suggesting a hastily formed “paper” company which adopts a name that is nearly indistinguishable from an established trademark and, soon after formation, acquires a corresponding domain name.

The Panel quickly resolved the bad faith element of the case. Ultimately, the Panel ruled that domain be TRANSFERRED.

Walk over to any college campus bar and just say the words JAGER BOMB and you will likely get mixed reactions of joy and pain from the students. For years the JAGER BOMB has been a popular drink at bars across the country, and around the world. The people at Mast-Jaegermeister AG know this and made sure to get protection for this famous mixed drink. They have a registration for the JAGER BOMB mark and filed a UDRP domain dispute for the domain www.jager-bomb.com. In Mast-Jaegermeister AG v. John Marzlak FA1317337 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 18, 2010) a single member Panel agreed with the liquor manufacturer and agreed to transfer the domain. Complainant maintains a website at www.jager.com.

The decision did highlight one relevant fact, which had respondent provided a response may have been fleshed out in more detail. The disputed domain was being used to promote the sale of Jager Bomb Shot Cups. Complainant made note of this and the Panel explained:

Respondent capitalizes on the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website offering plastic cups for consumers to use with Complainant’s product.  Therefore, the Panel finds that such diversionary use of the disputed domain name for Respondent’s own commercial gain does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 

There wasn’t anything too exciting or different about this decision. One side note, the domain www.jagebomb.com is parked with “coming soon” text and an info@jagerbomb.com email address. The domain has a privacy service so it is unclear whether Complainant owns it or whether it will be developed. Complainant appears to operate or at least authorize a website devoted to cups just for Jager bombs, namely www.jagerbombcups.com.

If you haven’t heard about Ashley Madison, then you are likely in a committed relationship and would never even consider cheating or you don’t pay much attention to commercials. In the recent cybersquatting case of Avid Dating Life, Inc. v. Private Whois Service FA1318204 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 13, 2010) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over 101 domains. A full list of the domains is provided in the decision. Complainant is the owner of the well known website www.AshleyMadison.com where people can seek out others who are in committed relationships seeking to have an affair. As their own tag line states “Life is Short. Have an Affair.” No matter what you may think about such a service, it has become wildly popular and boasts nearly 6 million anonymous members. One of the disputed domains was registered in 2005, while all the others were registered in 2008 and 2009. Complainant has federal trademark rights dating back to at least 2004.

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 Complainant established rights in its ASHLEY MADISON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the USPTO. All of the disputed domain names contained some typographical modification to the registered mark. The Panel found these domains were confusingly similar to the registered mark since they were common misspellings. For this reason, the Panel found that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) had been satisfied.

The second part of the analysis the Panel noted that Complainant presented a prima facie case, and although Respondent failed to respond, it still chose to review the facts. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domains. Evidence presented to the Panel included proof that two of the disputed domains contained links to competing adult dating websites.

The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <ashleymadis0on.com> and <ashleymadision.com> domain names to display third-party links to competitors of Complainant is not a use in connection with 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).

The Complainant noted that the other 99 domains did not resolve to active websites. The Panl found that failure to make active use of the domains meant they were “not connected with a bona fide offering or goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).” And lastly under this section, the Panel found “registration of the disputed domain names containing misspelled versions of Complainant’s mark is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).” For all these reasons, Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) had been satisfied.

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel repeated many of the same facts and applied them in this section as stated earlier. This includes, the third party links, the inactive websites, the typographical variations on the domain names. The Panel also found that “Respondent’s registration of many trademark infringing domain names within a short period of time is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).” For all these reasons, Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) had been satisfied.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant presented and proved all three elements, and ordered the domains be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Privacy Locked c/o Privacy Locked LLC FA1315677 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 6, 2010) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.24horfitness.com. Complainant is the well known national chain of fitness centers and maintains a website at www.24hourfitness.com. Complainant has a trademark registration for 24HOURFITNESS.COM since October 2000. Respondent 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.

The Panel began with a discussion of finding that the Complaint’s rights in the mark 24HOURFITNESS.COM were sufficient to establish trademark rights for the purposes of this dispute. “The Panel finds the misspelling of the mark in the disputed domain name does not differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).” 

For the second element, whether or not respondent had any rights or legitimate interests in the domain, the Panel explained that 24 Hour Fitness had presented a prima facie case, and that although the Respondent did not respond, the Panel still reviewed the facts and evidence presented. First the Panel found that Respondent’s WHOIS information showed it was not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Second the domain name resolved to a web directory with third party competitor links. For this reason, Respondent had failed to use the domain for a bona fide offering of goods ro services. Lastly since this domain was an intentional misspelling of the mark, it was considered typosquatting and thus violated the Policy.

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel explained that the third party competitor links were evidence of bad faith since it would disrupt Complainant’s business. Additionally, the practice of typosquatting was found to be bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 

For all these reasons, the Panel found that Complainant met the requirements and ruled that the domain be TRANSFERRED.

It should come as no surprise that adult web sites are targeted for cybersquatting. In the recent domain name dispute of Blu Media Inc. v. Transure Enterprise Ltd c/o Host Master FA1307892 (Nat. Arb. Forum, March 30, 2010) a single member panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.justsuboys.com. Complainant uses its domain www.justusboys.com as a for profit adult website. The domain was originally launched in 2002, although complainant did not purchase it until January 2010. Respondent registered the disputed domain in October 2009.  Respondent 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 Complainant does not have a registration for the mark JUSTUSBOYS.COM.  Thus the Panel was forced to determine if the Complainant’s mark had established secondary meaning.

In support of its contention Complainant has submitted evidence of awards received for its e-magazine as well as critic reviews of its website and magazine.  Complainant further provides evidence of high “Alexa” rankings for the number of visitors to its website.  The Panel finds that Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to show it has common law rights in the JUSTUSBOYS.COM mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through continuous and extensive commercial use before Respondent registered the disputed domain name.

The Panel found that the disputed domain was confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) had been satisfied

Moving to the second element, the Panel noted that Complainant submitted evidence sufficient for a showing and establishment of a prima facie case. Regardless the Panel chose to review the evidence presented. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain. Additionally, the disputed domain was offering third party links to competing adult oriented web sites. “The Panel finds that Respondent’s reliance on typosquatting to create a confusingly similar disputed domain name, where it receives referral fees to websites in competition with Complainant is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).” Also, Complainant put forth evidence that Respondent was seeking to sell the disputed domain publicly and to Complainant. Lastly, the Panel remarked that the domain was a typosquatted version of the mark. For all these reasons, the Panel found that Respondent lacked any rights or legitimate interests in the domain, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) had been satisfied

In addressing the final element, the Panel began by examining Respondent offer to sell the domain for $5,000.00 to Complainant. “The Panel finds that Respondent’s general listing of the disputed domain name for sale, as well as its attempts to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for amounts in excess of its initial costs are evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).” The Panel also found that Respondent intentionally disrupted Complainant’s business. Additionally, the Panel found that the use of competitive third party links for financial gain was evidence of bad faith registration and use. Ultimately, the Panel ruled  that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) had been satisfied            

After review of all the elements the Panel ruled that Complainant met all three and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent cybersquatting case of Omega SA v. Domain Admin1302921 (Nat Arb. Forum, February 24, 2010) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.omegawatchstore.com. Omega is the well known watch maker with rights to the mark OMEGA. They maintain a web site at www.omegawatches.com. Respondent registered the disputed domain on March 6, 2009 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 Complainant established rights to the OMEGA mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). The Panel found that the disputed domain merely added the descriptive phrase watch store, creating a confusingly similar domain to that of Complainant’s mark. The Panel found Complainant satisfied this element.

Moving to the second element, the Panel found that OMEGA set forth a prima facie case, but decided to review the evidence anyway. The Panel found that the Whois information for Respondent did not show that it was commonly known by the domain. Additionally, it was determined that the disputed domain sold counterfeit watches, which was not a bona fide offering of goods. The Panel found this element was satisfied by OMEGA as well.

For the last element, bad faith, the Panel explained that the selling of counterfeit goods constituted a disruption of OMEGA’s business. This attempt to redirect consumers for profit was evidence of bad faith.

The Panel found that OMEGA proved all three elements, and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent cybersquatting decision of Hasbro, Inc. v. City of Media FA1302591 (Nat. Arb. Forum, February 25, 2010) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.monopolybingo.com. Hasbro is the famous game producer of the Monopoly board game, which has been played by approximately 750 million people worldwide. Habsro maintains to relevant web site, namely www.monopoly.com and www.hasbro.com. The MONOPOLY mark has been used in the U.S. since 1935 and Hasbro has been promoting its online version of the game for a few years. Respondent registered the disputed domain on November 10, 2008.

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 Hasbro established rights to the mark MONOPOLY and that the disputed domain merely added the generic word bingo. The Panel found that the domain was confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

Moving to the second element, the Panel explained that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain. Additionally, the disputed domain resolved to a wbe site which had third party links and advertisements. The Panel determined that Respondent profited from click through fees generated from these links. Therefore, the use of the site was not a bona fide offering of goods or services and the Panel found Complainant satisfied this element as well.

Finally, the last element, bad faith, the Panel found that some of the third party links displayed the MONOPOLY trademark and some of the links directly competed with the gaming services provided by Hasbro. The Panel believed this domain sought to disrupt Hasbro’s business by redirecting consumers to competitors.
        
For these reasons, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all the elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent cybersquatting case of Juicy Couture, Inc. v. Francisco Gibbs FA1296086 (Nat. Arb. Forum, January 13, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.JuicyCoutureWholesale.com. Complainant is the well known retailer of men’s, women’s, and children’s apparel, toiletries, paper products, and accessories.  Complainant purchased the JUICY COUTURE mark in 2003 and has continued use of the mark. Complainant maintains a web site at www.juicycouture.com. Respondent registered the disputed domain on November 6, 2009 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 Complainant’s multiple JUICY COUTURE trademark registrations sufficiently established their rights to the mark. The Panel found that the domain incorporated all of the JUICY COUTURE mark and merely added the generic word wholesale. For this reason the Complainant was able to prove the first element.

The Panel moved to the second element, noting that Complainant presented a prima facie case, shifting the burden to Respondent. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain. Additionally, Respondent was found to not have authorization to use the mark. The Panel further explained:

According to Complainant, the <juicycouturewholesale.com> domain name is being used in association with a website that offers counterfeits of Complainant’s products for sale without authorization.  Such use for the purpose of benefiting from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s JUICY COUTURE mark does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).  Furthermore, Respondent’s use of the JUICY COUTURE mark in the domain name to operate a competing website for profit is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 

For these reasons, Complainant proved the second element. Moving to the final element, the Panel again discussed the presence of the domain offering counterfeit goods. The Panel found this counterfeit use suggests the domain was registered for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business and thus was bad faith. Additionally, the offering of counterfeit goods was an attempt to profit by creating a likelihood of confusion. For these reasons, the Panel found this element was proven by Complainant.

Ultimately, the Panel found the Juicy Couture proved all three elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent cybersquatting action JetPay, LLC v. JetyPayments FA1294887 (Nat. Arb. Forum, January 6, 2010) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.jetypay.com. Complainant offers credit card and check authorization processing services since 2000 and maintains a web site a www.jetpay.com. Complainant holds a trademark registration for the JETPAY mark. Respondent registered the disputed domain in December 2007 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 Complainant established its rights in the JETPAY mark pursuant to the Policy. Additionally, the Panel found that Complainant provided sufficient evidence of common law rights and secondary meaning for the mark dating back to 2000. A comparison of the mark with the disputed domain showed that Respondent merely added the letter “y” in the middle. As a result, the Panel found this to be confusingly similar.

Moving to the second element, the Panel explained that Complainant set forth a prima facie case, shifting the burden to Respondent. Interstingly the Panel found that although Respondent appeared to be commonly known by the disputed domain, it still lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain. The Panel explained that Respondnet’s use of the domain, namely selling goods or services similar to Complainant’s was not a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommerical use. As a result, the Panel noted Complainant satisfied this element.

The last element, bad faith, was also favorable to Complainant. The Panel explained the disputed domain linked internet users to a website offering similar products and services as those of Complainant. This was found to be bad faith under the Policy. Additionally, the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract users for profit, creates a strong likelihood of confusion, thus also being bad faith.

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