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 Michelin North America, Inc. v. Bobbi Goldfinch c/o Gold finch enterprise FA1285536 (Nat. Arb. Forum, November 2, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.michelintires.org. Complainant is the well known manufacturer of tires, with sales in nearly 170 countries. Complainant owns a trademark for MICHELIN since 1970. 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: (i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel noted that the disputed domain name incorporated all of the MICHELIN trademark and added the descriptive term tires. This addition increased the likelihood of confusion since it related directly to Michelin’s products. The Panel noted that the affixation of a generic top-level domain was functional and had no effect as well. The Panel found Michelin satisfied this element.

Moving to the second element, the Panel noted that Michelin made a prima facie case, which shifted the burden to Respondent. However, since Respondent did not present a defense, the Panel could have chosen to find in favor of Complainant and move on, but instead the Panel chose to review the record. The Panel noted that the disputed domain resolved to a site showing Complainant’s logo and providing click-through links to Michelin’s competitors. The Panel found this was not bona fide offering of goods or services. Additionally the Whois information showed that Respondent was not commonly known by the name. For these reasons the Panel found that Michelin satisfied this element also.

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel found that Respondent’s use of a web site with click-through links to divert business satisfied this element. Additionally, those click-through links were presumed to receive click-through fees, capitalizing on Michelin’s mark. The Panel found that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain.

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

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Rockstar, Inc. v. RSRESELLER LTD c/o Andrey Litovchenko (Nat. Arb. Forum FA1279865, September 29, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.thetruthaboutrockstarenergydrink.com. Complainant is the exclusive licensee of the ROCKSTAR and ROCKSTAR ENERGY DRINK marks in connection with its very popular energy drinks. Complainant has been using the marks since 1999 and has a registered trademark and maintains a web site at www.rockstar69.com. Respondent registered the domain in June 2009 and failed to respond to the complaint.

Paragraph 4(a) of the 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 had sufficient rights to the mark under the Policy  ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel next compared the disputed domain to Complainant’s mark and found that the disputed domain merely added the generic phrase “the truth about” at the front of the domain. The Panel found that this difference was not significant and found the domain to be confusingly similar.

Moving to the second element, the Panel found that Complainant presented a prima facie case, shifting the burden of proof to Respondent. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain and had no license or permission to use the mark. The most significant findings from this section though were as follows:

Respondent’s disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a website that displays critical and disparaging information about Complainant.  Previous UDRP precedent has held that a respondent does not have the right appropriate Complainant’s mark in a disputed domain name in order to exercise free speech rights on a resolving website.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has not created 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 Panel’s support for this finding was based on one citation from a June 2000 WIPO decision and a Second Circuit decision from 2000 as well. As a result the Panel found Complainant satisfied this element as well.

In addressing the final element, the Panel explained that it was within its power to consider additional factors beyond those listed in Policy ¶4(b). The Panel acknowledged that the disputed domain resolved to a web site that criticized Complainant but quoted another decision in support of its finding:

In Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001), the panel stated that although the respondent’s complaint website did not compete with the complainant or earn commercial gain, the respondent’s appropriation of the complainant’s trademark with a view to cause “damage and disruption to [Complainant] cannot be right, still less where the use of the Domain Name will trick internet users intending to visit the trademark owner’s site into visiting the registrant’s site” in holding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

As a result, the Panel found that “Respondent’s criticism of Complainant’s business through the disputed domain name was achieved only through bad faith registration and use, as Respondent misappropriated Complainant’s trademark through the confusingly similar disputed domain name.” Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all elements of the Policy and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of American Girl, LLC and American Girl Brands, LLC v. Eileen Coleman (Nat. Arb. Forum FA1279516, September 28, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.americangirldollsclothing.com. Complainant is the widely popular creator and seller of dolls, dolls accessories, and books for young girls. They have many trademark registrations for the mark AMERICAN GIRL and maintain a web site at www.americangirl.com. Respondent registered the disputed domain on July 18, 2008 and failed to respond to the complaint.

Paragraph 4(a) of the 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 registrations were sufficient to establish rights for the AMERICAN GIRL mark under the UDRP Policy. The Panel found that the disputed domain contained all of Complainant’s mark with the addition of the words dolls and clothing. These additional words describe products sold by Complainant, thus there was no significant distinguishing nature of the disputed domain. The Panel found that Policy ¶4(a)(i) was satisfied.

Moving to the second element, the Panel noted that Complainant made a prima facie showing under the UDRP Policy. Additionally, the Panel found that the Whois information did not show that Respondent was commonly known by the domain. The disputed domain resolved to a web site with a similar color scheme as Complainant and also displayed Complainant’s mark. The Panel found this use to be a passing off of Complainant.  The disputed domain also contained links to competing third party web sites. For these reasons, the Panel found that Policy ¶4(a)(ii) was satisfied.

Moving to the final element, the Panel explained:

Respondent, upon registering the <americangirldollsclothing.com> domain name on July 18, 2008, uses the disputed domain and its similar resolving website to divert Internet users to competing third-party websites that sell Complainant’s products.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because it disrupts Complainant’s business… The Panel further finds that Respondent’s conduct, presumably for commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

For these reasons, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied the last element, thus meeting its overall burden. As a result, the Panel ordered the disputed domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of ACCION USA Inc. and ACCION International v. Accion Now c/o Brian Accion (Nat Arb Forum FA 1278458, September 23, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.accionnow.com. ACCION USA is a nonprofit organization which helps small business get loans. ACCION USA has a trademark for ACCION in connection with its services dating back to 1983, with an issued registration in 2005. ACCION maintains a web site at www.accionusa.org. Respondent registered the domain on June 9, 2009 and failed to respond to the Complaint.

Paragraph 4(a) of the 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 prong and noted that the disputed domain contained all of ACCION’s mark. “Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <accionnow.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCION mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because none of these additions to Complainant’s mark sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain from Complainant’s mark.”

Moving to the second element, the Panel noted that ACCION made a prima facie showing, and that the burden shifted to Respondent. The Panel next reviewed the Whois information provided by Respondent and explained:

The WHOIS information for the <accionnow.com> domain name lists “Accion Now c/o Brian Accion.”  While this information suggests that Respondent may be commonly known by the disputed domain, no other information in the record corroborates this suggestion.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the the <accionnow.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 

ACCION’s business predominantly involves providing small businesses with loans. The Panel found that the disputed domain purported to allow individuals to apply for loans, which was a passing off of Complainant’s business. Additionally the Panel found that the disputed domain offered fraudulent loan opportunities as part of a phising scheme to obtain confidential information.  These phising attempts and the attempt to pass off as ACCION was not a bona fide offering of business services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

The Panel moved to the last element, bad faith, and found as follows:

The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant in order to financially gain by obtaining confidential information constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), as Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name…Moreover, the Panel finds that Respondent’s aforementioned phishing attempt to fraudulently acquire Internet users’ personal information represents further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 

Ultimately, the Panel found that ACCION met all of the elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute of L.F.P., Inc. and LFP IP, LLC v. Anthonny, Network Service (WIPO D2009-0984, September 13, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.hustlerlesbians.com. Complainant is the famous publisher of Hustler magazine and has many other ventures including videos and clothing under the HUSTLER mark. Complainant maintains a web site at www.hustler.com. The disputed domain was registered in September 2007 and the Respondent failed to respond to the complaint.

In accordance with Policy the Complainant must demonstrate that: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel noted that L.F.P. (“Larry Flynt Productions”) had valid and long term trademark registrations for the HUSTLER mark. The Panel found that the disputed domain incorporated all of complainant’s mark including the generic word lesbians. The Panel explained:

The Complainant contends persuasively, and without contradiction from the Respondent, that a significant portion of the Complainant’s exploitation of adult entertainment products involves lesbian sexual activity. Ergo, the Panel concludes that a reasonable Internet user would find the similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark confusing as to the source of the material found at the web site corresponding to the disputed domain name.

As a result, the Panel found Hustler satisfied this element. Moving to the second element, rights or legitimate interests, the Panel found that the disputed domain redirected users to adult material which competed directly with Hustler. The respondent did not make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to the Policy. Additionally the Panel noted that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain. For these reasons, the Panel found Hustler satisfied the second element.

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel explained that HUSTLER has been well known throughout the world and the U.S. for years. The Panel held:

Furthermore, the Complainant has provided the Panel with acceptable visual evidence that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for its web site that prompts Internet users to acquire material depicting lesbian sexual liaisons. Such material is a mainstay of the Complainant’s business, and the use of the Complainant’s full trademark as the first and dominant part of the disputed domain name compels the Panel to believe that the Respondent deliberately registered the name to confuse the public as to the source of said material for the Respondent’s commercial gain.

As a result, the Panel found that Complainant met all three elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Darren Entwistle, Telus Corporation v. Finian Commission (WIPO D2009-0961, September 1, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.darrenentwistle.com. Darren Entwistle is the President and CEO of TELUS, a leading national telecommunications company in Canada. TELUS provides a wide range of communications products and services including data, Internet protocol (IP), voice, entertainment and video and maintains a web site at www.telus.com. Respondent provided a response, but it is unclear from the decision how detailed it actually was.

Under 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainants must establish each of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and (iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, the Panel acknowledged that Mr. Entwistle does not have any federal trademark rights and instead needed to establish sufficient common law rights. The Panel  relied on the prior decision of Chung, Mong Koo and Hyundai Motor Company v. Individual, WIPO Case No. D2005-1068, which sets out six factors needed to establish a nexus between an individual’s name and its use and association in trade and commerce. They include:

1) the extent to which the commercial community identifies the individual with the company;
2) the extent to which the individual is seen by relevant media and sections of the public as the alter ego and driving force behind the company;
3) the extent of the personal ownership of the company by the individual;
4) the degree of personal control that the individual exercises over the enterprise;
5) the extent to which the individual is identified with any major achievements of the enterprise; and
6) whether the individual and/or the company has a demonstrable interest in protecting the individual’s name for commercial use.

The Panel then reviewed the evidence and found that Complainant sufficiently proved all of those six factors to show a nexus between Complainant and his company. AS a result, the Panel found that Complainant had shown sufficient common law rights, and finding that the domain was identical to the mark.

Moving to the second element, the Panel found that respondent was not known by the disputed domain. The Panel then relies on prior domain decisions which stood for the proposition that “it is not appropriate to use the name of the entity whom one wishes to criticize on the basis of ‘fair use’ to divert Internet traffic to the site.” The Panel seems to acknowledge that the disputed domain was used to criticize, but in the same respect it finds that since “the website at the disputed domain name also provides links to goods and services of third party entities for the purpose of monetary gain, the Respondent cannot be said to be making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.” Thus the Panel found that Complainant satisfied the second element as well.

Moving to the final element the Panel addresses Respondent contentions that this proceeding is an attempt at stifling free speech through censorship. The Panel, relying on three prior decisions, explains that the one may be entitled to criticism, but not when it is using a domain which is identical to someone’s trademark. Regardless, the Panel notes that use of the domain to denigrate Complainant, while having commercial links on the same web site cannot be found to be pure criticism.

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

In the recent domain name dispute of Dorothy Lane Market v. Tony Chang FA1271237 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 18, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.killerbrownie.com. Complainant markets and sells a multilayed brownie called the KILLER BROWNIE. The maintain a web site at www.dorothylane.com and have a federal trademark registration for KILLER BROWNIE with rights dating back to at least 1988. Respondent registered the disputed domain in September 2006 and failed to respond to the dispute.

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 the disputed domain contained all of complainant’s mark, with the omission of the space between the words and the addition of the generic top level domain “.com” The Panel found the domain was identical to Complainant’s mark.

Moving onto the second element, the Panel explained that although Complainant had shown a prima facie case, it would still review the record. The disputed domain resolved to a web site containing Respondent’s personal biography and resume. The Panel found “that Respondent’s use of the identical <killerbrownie.com> domain name, to divert Internet users to a website that is unrelated to Complainant’s KILLER BROWNIE mark, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), respectively.” The Panel also noted that Respondent was not commonly know by the disputed domain.

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel explained that under the Policy, “that it may look beyond the Policy ¶ 4(b) elements while considering a Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) analysis, and may find bad faith registration and use from the totality of the circumstances under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).” The Panel found that there appeared to be no commercial use of the site, but that the disputed domain lends itself to the impression that there was a goal of confusion.

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

DefendMyDomain Commentary: At first blush, it is unclear why the Panel did not view Respondent’s use of a personal web site as fair use. Actual review of the disputed site may better answer that question. For instance, the site was purportedly registered by Respondent in 2006 yet it has a “2000-2008″ copyright notification on the site. Also it lists a different domain at the bottom, www.eliminated.org, which has the identical information. Therefore one can only assume there was never an intention to actually use the site as a blog, despite wording on the site to the contrary. Since the Panel decision did not mention any of these facts we cannot assume they were actually considered. If they weren’t considered, then we have concerns about the potential implications of this decision. As usual the world of domain disputes remains uncertain.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Phantom Technologies LLC v. Seo Jae Woo FA1272159 (August 18, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.iboss.com. Complainant develops and markets Internet web filtering technologies and equipment. Complainant began using its mark IBOSS in early 2002, but does not have a federal trademark registration. Complainant maintains relevant web sites at www.iphantom.com and www.myiboss.com. Respondent failed to respond to the complaint. The disputed domain was registered in December 2002.

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 although Complainant did not have a federal registration, the IBOSS mark was nonetheless used on over one hundred additional domain names and web sites. This coupled with Complainant’s long seven year history of use of the IBOSS mark was sufficient to establish common law rights. The Panel found that the disputed domain was identical to Complainant’s mark.

Moving to the second element, the Panel noted that it would review the evidence presented despite Complainant’s showing of a prima facie case. The Panel found:

Respondent’s <iboss.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring third party links unrelated to Complainant.  The Panel infers Respondent profits through click-through fees from the links to the third parties.  The Panel finds Respondent’s 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 of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

The Panel also found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain as shown through the Whois information.

Moving to the last element, bad faith, the Panel explained that the disputed domain resolved to a web with unrelated third party links. These links were presumed to result in profits from click through fees. The Panel found this use to be bad faith.

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