DECISION

United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Adorlee Chasse

Claim Number: FA1908001856450

PARTIES

Complainant is United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sabina A. Vayner of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Adorlee Chasse (“Respondent”), Germany.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain names at issue are <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <anonym-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <vorkasse-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz>, registered with Namecheap, Inc., Namecheap.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 9, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 9, 2019.

On August 9, 2019; Aug 26, 2019, Namecheap, Inc., Namecheap confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <anonym-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <vorkasse-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names are registered with Namecheap, Inc., Namecheap and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Namecheap, Inc., Namecheap has verified that Respondent is bound by the Namecheap, Inc., Namecheap registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On August 28, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 17, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@dokapotheke-ups.info, postmaster@anonym-ups.info, postmaster@medapotheke-ups.info, postmaster@24apotheke-ups.info, postmaster@ohnerezept-ups.info, postmaster@sichervital-ups.info, postmaster@apothekepillen-ups.info, postmaster@pillenapotheke-ups.info, postmaster@vorkasse-ups.info, postmaster@diskretapo-ups.info, postmaster@apotheke-ups.info, postmaster@apotheke-ups.club, postmaster@maennerpotenz-ups.xyz, postmaster@expressapothekeups.info, postmaster@diskretapothekeups.info, postmaster@rezeptfreipotenzups.pw, postmaster@rezeptfreipotenzups.online, postmaster@potenzmeds-ups.xyz. Also on August 28, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On September 19, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1. Complainant operates in the logistics, transportation, shipping and delivery industries. Complainant has rights in the UPS mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 966,774, registered Aug. 21, 1973). See Compl. Annex 7. Respondent’s <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <anonym-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <vorkasse-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s UPS mark because they all wholly incorporate Complainant’s UPS mark, and merely adds generic or descriptive terms relating to pharmacy and medication services, followed by a hyphen, then ending in a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) or country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) (e.g., “.info,” “.xyz,” “.club,” “.online,” or “.pw”).

2. Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <anonym-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <vorkasse-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s UPS mark and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent listed in the WHOIS records is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Compl. Annex 4. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because each of the disputed domain names resolves to either an error message or a webpage offering pharmaceuticals and medications illegally. See Compl. Annexes 18 and 20.

3. Respondent registered and uses the infringing domain names in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the <anonym-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, and <vorkasse-ups.info> domain names where Respondent illegally offers pharmaceuticals and medications for sale. See Compl. Annex 20. Furthermore, Respondent’s passive holding of the <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names indicates bad faith. See Compl. Annex 18. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s UPS mark prior to registering the disputed domain names.

B. Respondent

1. Respondent did not submit a response.

FINDINGS

1. Respondent’s <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <anonym-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <vorkasse-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s UPS mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <anonym-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <vorkasse-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names.

3. Respondent registered or used the <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <anonym-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <vorkasse-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names in bad faith.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

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 view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the UPS mark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Here, Complainant provides registrations for its trademarks (e.g., Reg. No. 966,774, registered Aug. 21, 1973). See Compl. Annex 7. Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has rights in the UPS mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Next, Complainant argues Respondent’s <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <anonym-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <vorkasse-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s UPS mark because they all wholly incorporate Complainant’s UPS mark, and merely adds generic or descriptive terms relating to pharmacy and medication services, sometimes followed by a hyphen, then ending in a gTLD or ccTLD (e.g., “.info,” “.xyz,” “.club,” “.online,” or “.pw”). The addition of generic or descriptive terms, a hyphen, and a gTLD/ccTLD to a complainant’s mark have been found insufficient to withstand a test of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Here, Complainant contends that the each of the German words prepended upon the UPS mark is a generic or descriptive term. Therefore, the Panel agrees with Complainant and find Respondent’s disputed domain names to be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s UPS mark.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <anonym-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <vorkasse-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names as Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use the UPS mark and there is no evidence to suggest Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”). Complainant provides WHOIS information for Respondent indicating that Respondent is known as “Adorlee Chasse” and no information of the record indicates that Respondent was authorized to use the Complainant’s UPS mark. See Compl. Annex 4. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

Complainant argues Respondent fails to use the <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because they resolve to webpages with error messages. An inactive holding of a disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving webpages displaying the error message. See Compl. Annex 18. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to provide 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).

Next, Complainant argues Respondent fails to use the <anonym-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, and <vorkasse-ups.info> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because they resolve to a webpage illegally offering pharmaceuticals and medications for sale. Use of a website to promote illegal products 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)). See Nycomed Danmark ApS v. Diaz, D2006-0779 (WIPO Aug. 15, 2006) (concluding that the respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to operate a website promoting an illegal food supplement was 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)). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving webpages displaying the products Complainant purports to be illegal pharmaceuticals and medications (e.g., Cialis and Viagra) for sale. See Compl. Annex 20. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to provide 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).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the infringing domain names in bad faith because Respondent engages in disruption of Complainant’s business, using the <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names to resolve to webpages with error messages. Use of a disputed domain name to disrupt a complainant’s business by pointing Internet users to an expired webpage is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Love City Brewing Company v. Anker Fog / Love City Brewing Company, FA 1753144 (Forum Nov. 27, 2017) (Finding that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by pointing Internet users to an expired webpage. This may create the perception that Complainant is closed, never existed, or is not a legitimate business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).); see also CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) (“Respondent’s domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use.”). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving webpages that display the error message. See Compl. Annex 18. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

Next, Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the infringing domain names in bad faith because Respondent engages in disruption of Complainant’s business by attempting to attract, for commercial gain, users to the <anonym-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, and <vorkasse-ups.info> domain names where Respondent illegally offers pharmaceuticals and medications for sale. Use of a disputed domain name to divert Internet users for profit is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving webpages displaying the products Complainant purports to be illegal pharmaceuticals and medications for sale. See Compl. Annex 20. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

Finally, Complainant asserts that Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UPS mark as the result of Complainant’s extensive use of the mark predating the date on which respondent registered the disputed domain names and Respondent’s use of the mark on the resolving webpage. Although panels have generally not regarded constructive notice as sufficient for a finding of bad faith, actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registering is adequate to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014)

(“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”). Use of a mark on a resolving webpage may demonstrate that a respondent had actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark at the time of registration, thus constituting bad faith. Finex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). Complainant provides screenshots of several of the disputed domain names which feature the UPS mark. See Compl. Annex 20. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the UPS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dokapotheke-ups.info>, <anonym-ups.info>, <medapotheke-ups.info>, <24apotheke-ups.info>, <ohnerezept-ups.info>, <sichervital-ups.info>, <apothekepillen-ups.info>, <pillenapotheke-ups.info>, <vorkasse-ups.info>, <diskretapo-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.info>, <apotheke-ups.club>, <maennerpotenz-ups.xyz>, <expressapothekeups.info>, <diskretapothekeups.info>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.pw>, <rezeptfreipotenzups.online>, and <potenzmeds-ups.xyz> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated: October 2, 2019