United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico / Zhichao Yang / Yabani Eze / Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited / Lei Shi / leed johnny / Li Jiang / shi lei / Shi Xue Miao / Yang Zhi Chao / Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Claim Number: FA2106001952218
Complainant is United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sabina A. Vayner of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico / Zhichao Yang / Yabani Eze / Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited / Lei Shi / leed johnny / Li Jiang / shi lei / Shi Xue Miao / Yang Zhi Chao / Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <upsprewotkcheck.com>, <upsprewrokcheck.com>, <upspreworkchck.com>, <upspreowrkcheck.com>, <upsppreworkcheck.com>, <upsprewrkcheck.com>, <upspreorkcheck.com>, <upspreworckcheck.com>, <upspreworkheck.com>, <upspreworkchevk.com>, <upspreworkceck.com>, <upspreworkoutcheck.com>, <upsprewprkcheck.com>, <upsprewirkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchrck.com>, <upspreworkckeck.com>, <upspreworlcheck.com>, <upsperworkcheck.com>, <upspreworkcheckin.com>, <upspreworkercheck.com>, <upspreeorkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchexk.com>, <upserworkcheck.com>, <upsprecheckwork.com>, <upsprewoekcheck.com>, <upspreworkcgeck.com>, <upspreworkchech.com>, <upsspreworkcheck.com>, <upspreqorkcheck.com>, <upspreworkcheckup.com>, <upspreworktrack.com>, <upspreworkxheck.com>, <upspreworkhealthcheck.com>, <upsprworkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchek.com>, <upspreworcheck.com>, <upspreworkchec.com>, <upsworkcheck.com>, <upsprewokcheck.com>, <upspreworkcheck.co>, <upsprecheck.com>, <upspeworkcheck.com>, <upsworkprecheck.com>, <upsreworkcheck.com>, <upsoreworkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchcekc.com>, and <upsprework.com> (collectively “Domain Names”) registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC or Sav.com, LLC; Media Elite Holdings Limited; DNSPod, Inc.; West263 International Limited; Cloud Yuqu LLC; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 22, 2021; the Forum received payment on June 22, 2021. The Complaint was received in English.
On June 22, 23, 24, and 30, 2021 respectively GoDaddy.com, LLC; Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Sav.com, LLC; Media Elite Holdings Limited, DNSPod, Inc., West263 International Limited, Cloud Yuqu LLC, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd., and Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <upsprewotkcheck.com>, <upsprewrokcheck.com>, <upspreworkchck.com>, <upspreowrkcheck.com>, <upsppreworkcheck.com>, <upsprewrkcheck.com>, <upspreorkcheck.com>, <upspreworckcheck.com>, <upspreworkheck.com>, <upspreworkchevk.com>, <upspreworkceck.com>, <upspreworkoutcheck.com>, <upsprewprkcheck.com>, <upsprewirkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchrck.com>, <upspreworkckeck.com>, <upspreworlcheck.com>, <upsperworkcheck.com>, <upspreworkcheckin.com>, <upspreworkercheck.com>, <upspreeorkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchexk.com>, <upserworkcheck.com>, <upsprecheckwork.com>, <upsprewoekcheck.com>, <upspreworkcgeck.com>, <upspreworkchech.com>, <upsspreworkcheck.com>, <upspreqorkcheck.com>, <upspreworkcheckup.com>, <upspreworktrack.com>, <upspreworkxheck.com>, <upspreworkhealthcheck.com>, <upsprworkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchek.com>, <upspreworcheck.com>, <upspreworkchec.com>, <upsworkcheck.com>, <upsprewokcheck.com>, <upspreworkcheck.co>, <upsprecheck.com>, <upspeworkcheck.com>, <upsworkprecheck.com>, <upsreworkcheck.com>, <upsoreworkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchcekc.com>, and <upsprework.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC or Sav.com, LLC; Media Elite Holdings Limited, DNSPod, Inc., West263 International Limited, Cloud Yuqu LLC, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd., and Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) respectively and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC; Sav.com, LLC; Media Elite Holdings Limited, DNSPod, Inc., West263 International Limited, Cloud Yuqu LLC, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd., and Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) have verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC; Sav.com, LLC; Media Elite Holdings Limited, DNSPod, Inc., West263 International Limited, Cloud Yuqu LLC, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd., and Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) registration agreements 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 July 7, 2021, the Forum served the English language Complaint and all Annexes, including an English and Chinese Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 27, 2021 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@upsprewotkcheck.com, postmaster@upsprewrokcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkchck.com, postmaster@upspreowrkcheck.com, postmaster@upsppreworkcheck.com, postmaster@upsprewrkcheck.com, postmaster@upspreorkcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworckcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkchevk.com, postmaster@upspreworkceck.com, postmaster@upspreworkoutcheck.com, postmaster@upsprewprkcheck.com, postmaster@upsprewirkcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkchrck.com, postmaster@upspreworkckeck.com, postmaster@upspreworlcheck.com, postmaster@upsperworkcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkcheckin.com, postmaster@upspreworkercheck.com, postmaster@upspreeorkcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkchexk.com, postmaster@upserworkcheck.com, postmaster@upsprecheckwork.com, postmaster@upsprewoekcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkcgeck.com, postmaster@upspreworkchech.com, postmaster@upsspreworkcheck.com, postmaster@upspreqorkcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkcheckup.com, postmaster@upspreworktrack.com, postmaster@upspreworkxheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkhealthcheck.com, postmaster@upsprworkcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkchek.com, postmaster@upspreworcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkchec.com, postmaster@upsworkcheck.com, postmaster@upsprewokcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkcheck.co, postmaster@upsprecheck.com, postmaster@upspeworkcheck.com, postmaster@upsworkprecheck.com, postmaster@upsreworkcheck.com, postmaster@upsoreworkcheck.com, postmaster@upspreworkchcekc.com, postmaster@upsprework.com. Also on July 7, 2021, the English and Chinese 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 July 29, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.
Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the Domain Names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
The Domain Names are registered to 10 different named entities across 8 different registrars. Complainant contends that all of the registrants for the Domain Names are related because: 1) the Domain Names are all similar variants of Complainant’s UPS mark, consisting of an intentionally misspelled variation of Complainant’s domain name <upspreworkcheck.com> 2) the Domain Names were registered within 7 months of each other 3) all of the Domain Names resolve to either a) an error webpage, b) a parked webpage, often with pay-per-click advertising or c) a random third party website with no connection to the Domain (“Respondent’s Websites”) 4) there are numerous connections between the named registrants, including shared websites, shared registrars or similar contact details. This evidence, in the Panel’s opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that 10 unconnected entities would register 47 variants of <upspreworkcheck.com> within the same 7 month period, none of which are being used for any apparent good-faith purpose.
In light of these contentions, which none of the identified registrants deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as “Respondent” in this Decision.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
The language of the Registration Agreement for a portion of the Domain Names is Chinese (the language of the Registration Agreement for the domain names registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC; Sav.com, LLC and Media Elite Holdings Limited is English). The Complaint has been provided in English.
It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would demonstrate familiarity with the English language and any evidence (or lack thereof) exhibiting Respondent’s understanding of the language requested by Complainant. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”) and Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, Case No. D2008-1191 (WIPO October 15, 2008) (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where “the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English”).
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. The Panel has already found that the Respondent registered a significant proportion of the Domain Names using English-language agreements. Furthermore, the Respondent’s Websites are all in English. Finally the Domain Names all consist or contain English-language words (some of which are misspelled). Given the alternative is to order that the proceeding continue in Chinese language, a language which the Complainant is unlikely to be familiar with, and noting that the Respondent has not objected to the proceeding continuing in English (or participated in the proceeding in any meaningful way) after considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should continue in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant, United Parcel Service of America, Inc., is one of the largest logistics, transportation, shipping, and delivery companies in the world. Complainant has rights in the UPS mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 966,774, registered Aug. 21, 1973). Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they all incorporate the UPS mark entirely and simply add the generic terms (sometimes misspelled) “Pre,” “Work,” “Check,” “Out,” “In,” “Up,” “Track,” and/or “Health,” and the gTLD.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the UPS mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domains for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Domain Names are inactive as they either resolve to an error page, a parked page, or various third-party websites.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent inactively holds the Domain Names as they either resolve to an error page, a parked page, or various third-party websites. Additionally, Respondent engages in opportunistic bad faith as the domains were registered shortly after Complainant registered its own <upspreworkcheck.com> domain name which it registered on May 15, 2020. Complainant uses the website at the <upspreworkcheck.com> domain name to prompt its employees to enter their identification and confirm that they do not have any symptoms of Covid-19 prior to commencing work. Furthermore, Respondent had constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UPS mark based on the fame of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the UPS mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UPS mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith.
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”).
Complainant has rights in the UPS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 966,774, registered Aug. 21, 1973). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. 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).”).
The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the UPS mark as they each incorporate the entire UPS mark while adding the generic terms or abbreviations (sometimes misspelled) “Pre,” “Work,” “Check,” “Out,” “In,” “Up,” “Track,” and/or “Health,” and a gTLD. The addition of generic, descriptive, or misspelled terms and a gTLD to a mark is insufficient to distinguish the Domain Names from the UPS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, “Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate.”); see additionally Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the UPS mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists “Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico / Zhichao Yang / Yabani Eze / Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited / Lei Shi / leed johnny / Li Jiang / shi lei / Shi Xue Miao / Yang Zhi Chao / Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD” as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
A portion of the Domain Names are inactive (resolving to an error or parked page). Absent other information, none of which is provided, inactive use by itself does not by itself illustrate rights or legitimate interests. See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The remaining Domain Names resolve to an essentially random selection of third party websites, none of which have any apparent connection with the Respondent or any apparent connection to the Domain Names themselves. Absent any other relevant information, simply redirecting a domain name to a random third party websites is not bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Harry Winston, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1749276 (Forum Oct. 18, 2017) (holding that use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to a rotating series of third-party websites, some of which attempt to install malware on users’ computers, does not show the respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.);
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, between (June 2020 and January 2021), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s UPS mark. The Complainant registered the <upspreworkcheck.com> domain name May 15, 2020. It is simply implausible that an entity would register 47 different variants of Complainant’s domain name in a 7 month period (without providing an explanation) other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the UPS mark and confusion with Complainant’s Website. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names to prevent the owner of the UPS mark from reflecting is mark in the corresponding domain names. See Microsoft Corporation and Skype v. zhong biao zhang / Unknown company / zhong zhang, FA1401001538218 (Forum Feb. 20, 2014) (holding that the respondent’s registration of three domain names incorporating variants of the complainant’s SKYPE mark reflected a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. RapidClic / VAUCLIN Olivier, FA1309001520008 (Forum Nov. 7, 2013) (finding that the respondent’s registration of multiple infringing domain names indicates a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Respondent has, without alternative explanation (or active use), registered 47 domain names wholly incorporate the UPS mark. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(ii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <upsprewotkcheck.com>, <upsprewrokcheck.com>, <upspreworkchck.com>, <upspreowrkcheck.com>, <upsppreworkcheck.com>, <upsprewrkcheck.com>, <upspreorkcheck.com>, <upspreworckcheck.com>, <upspreworkheck.com>, <upspreworkchevk.com>, <upspreworkceck.com>, <upspreworkoutcheck.com>, <upsprewprkcheck.com>, <upsprewirkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchrck.com>, <upspreworkckeck.com>, <upspreworlcheck.com>, <upsperworkcheck.com>, <upspreworkcheckin.com>, <upspreworkercheck.com>, <upspreeorkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchexk.com>, <upserworkcheck.com>, <upsprecheckwork.com>, <upsprewoekcheck.com>, <upspreworkcgeck.com>, <upspreworkchech.com>, <upsspreworkcheck.com>, <upspreqorkcheck.com>, <upspreworkcheckup.com>, <upspreworktrack.com>, <upspreworkxheck.com>, <upspreworkhealthcheck.com>, <upsprworkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchek.com>, <upspreworcheck.com>, <upspreworkchec.com>, <upsworkcheck.com>, <upsprewokcheck.com>, <upspreworkcheck.co>, <upsprecheck.com>, <upspeworkcheck.com>, <upsworkprecheck.com>, <upsreworkcheck.com>, <upsoreworkcheck.com>, <upspreworkchcekc.com>, and <upsprework.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: August 2, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page