Precious Puppies of Florida, Inc. v. kc a/k/a Kevin Chang
Claim Number: FA0707001028247
Complainant is Precious Puppies of Florida, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David
A. Gast, of Malloy & Malloy, P.A.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <preciouspuppies.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 3, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 3, 2007.
On July 3, 2007, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <preciouspuppies.com> domain name is registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On July 9, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 30, 2007 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 30, 2007.
On August 2, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
An Additional Submission was timely received from Complainant on August 6, 2007.
An Additional Submission was timely received from Respondent on August 14, 2007.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant owns a pending U.S. Trademark Application for the mark
PRECIOUS PUPPIES used in connection with “retail and online pet store services”
with a date of first use in
Complainant also owns a valid
Complainant Precious Puppies of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter “PPOF”) is the current owner of all rights, title, and interest, including the goodwill associated with the PRECIOUS PUPPIES trademark used in connection with retail and online pet store services. PPOF and/or its predecessors in interest have been in continuous use of the PRECIOUS PUPPIES trademark without interruption since at least as early as 2001. From April 2001 to 2004, PPOF and/or its predecessors in interest owned and operated the PRECIOUS PUPPIES boutique located at 4970 North University Drive, Lauderhill, Florida 33351 (hereinafter, “’PRECIOUS PUPPIES’ boutique I”). From 2004 to the present, PPOF has owned and operated the PRECIOUS PUPPIES boutique located at 801 South University Drive, Suite B-131, Plantation, Florida 33324 (hereinafter, “’PRECIOUS PUPPIES’ boutique II”).
The PRECIOUS PUPPIES boutique first opened for business on or about April 2001, at which time advertising and soliciting business for retail pet store services under the PRECIOUS PUPPIES trademark began. On or about April 2001, PPOF’s predecessors created and developed the website located at the domain name <preciouspuppies.net>, which advertises and promotes the PRECIOUS PUPPIES pet store services.
PPOF’s goods and/or services are generally described as retail and online pet store services which include, but are not limited to, the sale of puppies, crates, carriers, pet food, treats, toys, jewelry, beds, clothing, bowls, feeders, strollers, grooming products, harnesses, picture frames, shoes, sneakers, booties, and other items and/or gifts. Additionally, at least via their website, PPOF offers the ability to easily and efficiently research through numerous breeds of dogs. The website provides detailed information pertaining to each specific breed, including, but not limited to, photograph(s), breed information, price, identification number, and/or location of the dog.
The domain name <preciouspuppies.com> (hereinafter, “at-issue domain name”) is currently owned by kc, presumably the initials for Kevin Chang. The at-issue domain name was registered on or about February 4, 2002, which is well after PPOF’s predecessors in interest acquired trademark rights to the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark. As of February 4, 2002, and the time Respondent registered the at-issue domain name, PPOF’s PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark had been extensively advertised in Florida and nationwide, and was considered a well-known and famous mark for retail and online pet store services.
The at-issue domain name incorporates PPOF’s entire PRECIOUS PUPPIES trademark. The <preciouspuppies.com> domain name automatically directs the Internet users to a website located at the domain name <puppyfind.com>. The Internet website located at <puppyfind.com> appears to list a variety of online pet store services, including, but not limited to, puppy searching services and/or the sale of a various breeds of puppies.
Upon information and belief, Respondent attracts visitors to the website associated with the <preciouspuppies.com> and <puppyfind.com> domain names based upon the fame and reputation of PPOF’s PRECIOUS PUPPIES trademark. Once there, the visitor may search for puppies, view general puppy information, and/or purchase puppies, much like the services that are provided on PPOF’s website. In essence, Respondent is capitalizing on PPOF’s PRECIOUS PUPPIES trademark to earn money from people attempting to find information about PPOF’s retail and online pet store services and re-directing them to his own competing business. At no time has PPOF or any of its predecessors in interest given Respondent permission or authorization to use the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark as a domain name or in any other manner.
PPOF’s president has received correspondence from customers and/or potential customers which, upon further inquiry, indicate to her that the customers had mistakenly used the <preciouspuppies.com> domain name rather than <preciouspuppies.net> as the domain name for the destination e-mail address and/or in the actual text or body of the correspondence itself.
PPOF has established rights in the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark through continuous and extensive use of the mark since at least as early as 2001.
Respondent acquired the at-issue domain name no earlier than February 4, 2002. Respondent’s date of registration is well after PPOF and/or its predecessors acquired trademark rights to the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark. Thus, with respect to priority, PPOF maintains superior rights over Respondent.
The at-issue domain name incorporates PPOF’s trademark in its entirety. Neither the omission of the space between “PRECIOUS” and “PUPPIES” nor the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is sufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from PPOF’s trademark.
Respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the at-issue domain name or the name corresponding thereto in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before PPOF first used the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark. Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to direct Internet users to the <puppyfind.com> website that features advertising for a variety of goods and/or services, primarily puppy searching services and/or the sale of a variety of puppies.
Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to redirect Internet users interested in PPOF’s services to a competing commercial website located at the domain name <puppyfind.com> 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 of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent is not commonly known by the name “PRECIOUSPUPPIES.COM” or any variation thereof, nor has Respondent acquired trademark or service mark rights in the at-issue domain name. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name is not to create independent trademark rights, but is designed to free ride on PPOF’s established goodwill of its PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark. Accordingly, Respondent has no rights to, or legitimate interests in, the at-issue domain name.
Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name. ICANN Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Any use by Respondent is with the sole intent to mislead and divert interested consumers from PPOF’s retail and online pet store services.
Respondent registered and is using the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent has registered the at-issue domain name in order to prevent PPOF, the owner of the PRECIOUS PUPPIES trademark, from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. Based at least in part on the fame and recognition of PPOF’s PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark, Respondent must have registered the at-issue domain name with full knowledge of PPOF’s mark and the goods and services connected therewith.
With Respondent’s knowledge of PPOF’s retail and online pet store services, Respondent knew or had reason to know that the registration of the <preciouspuppies.com> domain name would deceive potential customers and disrupt the business of PPOF.
Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website located at <puppyfind.com> directed through the <preciouspuppies.com> domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with PPOF’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the at-issue domain name and/or the Internet website associated with <puppyfind.com>. The proliferation of the unauthorized use of the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark with the domain name <preciouspuppies.com> to redirect Internet users to PPOF’s competitors at <puppyfind.com>, demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith use of the mark.
Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to the Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent contends as follows:
The term "precious puppies" is generic. You can hear the term, or the singular version
of it "precious puppy," hundreds of times at any dog show and nobody
will be referring to Precious Puppies of Florida (PPOF). By using the phrase "of
The term "precious puppies" is popular because puppies are indeed precious. The alliteration of the "P's" and the fact that both words have two syllables makes the term very attractive to the ear. A similar domain would be <prettypuppies.com>, a domain name that Respondent also owns. Both domains are descriptive of what can be found at <puppyfind.com>. Literally thousands of people use the term "precious puppies" to describe the dogs they have for sale. Respondent has seen the term many times in classified ads and a quick search on Google will also turn up thousands of examples.
Respondent registered the generic at-issue domain name to use in connection with a bona fide business. Respondent provides a listing service for reputable dog breeders who breed their dogs at home in a loving environment.
As part of Respondent’s business he buys generic dog-related domains
that those looking for dogs might type into their browser. Respondent was in this business long before
Complainant started their business. Respondent
registered numerous domains names before Complainant's first use of the term in
business. Complainant did not have a
registered trademark of any kind at the time Respondent registered the at-issue
domain. Complainant filed for a
Complainant's contention that PPOF was famous at the time Respondent registered the domain is absurd. At the time Respondent registered the domain, PPOF owned the domain <preciouspuppies.net>, but did not have an active website at that URL. Respondent registered <preciouspuppies.com> on 2/4/2002, 5 months before Complainant put up a website at <preciouspuppies.net>.
Practically speaking, there was no way for Respondent to know about
Complainant's business. At the time
Respondent registered this domain, PPOF had one store in
Respondent’s history of buying generic dog-related domains prior to Complainant’s first use of the mark indicates that Respondent did not buy the domain in bad faith and that Respondent is not using it in bad faith. Anyone can register a generic term as a domain and by doing so establishes legitimate rights to it.
Complainant has known for at least 3 years that Respondent owns the
at-issue domain. Complainant has posted
the following statement on its website since March of 2004 "Remember we
are preciouspuppies.net not preciouspuppies.com." If Complainant really thought they had rights
to the domain, it would have tried to enforce its rights long ago. The fact that Complainant waited over 5 years
from the time that Respondent registered the at-issue domain name to file a
UDRP indicates that Complainant knows it has no such rights. Moreover the timing of their
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant, by its Additional Submission, contends as follows:
Respondent provides no evidence that the mark PRECIOUS PUPPIES is a
generic term. The mark PRECIOUS PUPPIES
is considered “suggestive” as a multitude of steps and some degree of
imagination is required to know exactly what Complainant’s services entail. Even if the mark is deemed descriptive, the
mark has been extensively used and advertised and has acquired distinctiveness
and secondary meaning. The USPTO
reviewed Complainant’s trademark application and offered no substantive
objections to the application. The
Examiner did not find that the mark is generic or descriptive.
On four separate occasions, the Patent and Trademark Office has found that the mark PRECIOUS PUPPIES was not generic or descriptive.
Complainant’s mark is used to distinguish its goods and services from those of others and has been successful to date. Respondent is not using the mark PRECIOUS PUPPIES in any manner other than as a domain name. There is no reference to the mark PRECIOUS PUPPY on Respondent’s website. Respondent has correctly not suggested otherwise. Respondent has no trademark rights in the term “PRECIOUS PUPPY” other than to infringe upon Complainant’s trademark rights.
The mark “Precious Puppies” is not a breed, thus registration of the domain name runs afoul of Registrant’s business model. The only person who would type in the mark PRECIOUS PUPPIES would be someone who is familiar with Complainant’s trademark and looking for their store or website. The domain information provided by Respondent is incomplete and does not establish Respondent’s superior rights to the mark “PRECIOUS PUPPIES.”
The domain name <puppyfind.com> has a creation date of July 9, 2002, which again, is well after Complainant first began using the mark and established a significant presence. Respondent cannot deny that Complainant first used the mark PRECIOUS PUPPIES and that Respondent’s use did not commence until more than a year and a half later.
Since there has been no use of the mark PRECIOUS PUPPIES, other than as a domain name that pointed to <puppyfind.com>, the other domain names owned by Respondent and their creation dates are largely irrelevant.
Respondent’s business model, as to the <preciouspuppies.com> domain name, only functions where the person already knows Complainant’s trademark. Where the mark is not a generic type of dog, the model plays upon the fame associated with a mark and uses that fame to attract Internet traffic.
Respondent is obviously familiar with various breeders of dogs. It is highly likely, then, that Respondent was aware of Complainant, and at least aware of Complainant’s domain name and website. Since Respondent owned the domain name dating back to 2001, there can be no question that Respondent was aware that his registration of <preciouspuppies.com> would be considered infringing.
Respondent is causing significant harm to the breeder community and any association between Complainant and Respondent has and will continue to cause significant harm and loss of goodwill to Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent by his Additional Submission contends as follows:
Respondent has no history of cybersquatting on the names of pet shops. Otherwise Complainant would have surely cited an example in its Additional Submission.
Respondent does not own PUPPY FIND (<puppyfind.com>) nor does he own a trademark for PUPPY FIND. Respondent is a business partner of PUPPY FIND and a partner in other dog-related businesses including <petscriptions.com> and <petbynet.com>.
The at-issue domain name was registered on February 4, 2002 and had previously been owned by someone who let it expire. The domain names that Respondent registered prior to 1999 were acquired in the aftermarket, but even most of these domains were acquired before Complainant was in business.
Respondent does not register the names of pet shops and there must be
over a hundred thousand pet shops in the
Complainant has not provided any proof of extensive advertising. A few local newspaper ads and local TV commercials does not constitute extensive advertising.
Complainant has applied for trademark registration in the mark PRECIOUS PUPPIES.
Complainant has colorable rights in the trademark PRECIOUS PUPPIES.
The terms making up Complainant’s mark are common terms and are descriptive
The at-issue domain name’s second level is textually identical to Complainant’s claimed trademark.
There is no compelling evidence that Respondent knew, or should have known, that Complainant claimed rights in PRECIOUS PUPPIES at the time Respondent registered the at-issue domain name.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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;
(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.
Complainant asserts common law rights in the
PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark. Complainant
submitted a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office for the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark. The application is pending,
however trademark registration is not required for Complainant to establish
rights in the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark. See
Complainant has established colorable common law rights in the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark by showing that the mark has likely acquired sufficient secondary meaning through extensive commercial use. See Hiatt v. Pers. Fan & Official Site Builders : we build great sites, FA 881460 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“[R]egistration with a trademark authority is unnecessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in instances where a mark has gained secondary meaning through extensive commercial use and common law rights have been established.”); see also S.A. Bendheim Co., Inc. v. Hollander Glass, FA 142318 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2003) (holding that the complainant established rights in the descriptive RESTORATION GLASS mark through proof of secondary meaning associated with the mark). While the assertions regarding the use of the mark made by Complainant may or may not survive adversarial proceedings that may follow the mark’s publication for opposition, they are sufficient for the purpose of maintaining the instant action under the UDRP.
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has established sufficient secondary meaning to confer common law rights in the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Stellar Call Ctrs. Pty Ltd. v. Bahr, FA 595972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 19, 2005) (finding that the complainant established common law rights in the STELLAR CALL CENTRES mark because the complainant demonstrated that its mark had acquired secondary meaning); see also Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established).
Respondent’s <preciouspuppies.com> domain name is identical to its PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The removal of the space between the two words, as well as the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” are inmaterial. See Diesel v. LMN, FA 804924 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2006) (finding <vindiesel.com> to be identical to complainant’s mark because “simply eliminat[ing] the space between terms and add[ing] the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com’ … [is] insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s VIN DIESEL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”); see also Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (“The Panel also finds that Respondent’s <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy Complainant must first make out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The threshold for such showing is low. See Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005). Once a prima facie case is established, the burden then shifts to Respondent who must demonstrate that it nevertheless has rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Complainant contends that it did not authorize Respondent to use the <preciouspuppies.com> domain name. Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor commonly known as, PRECIOUS PUPPIES. Therefore, Complainant has satisfied its light burden.
Respondent is using the <preciouspuppies.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Respondent provides a listing service for dog breeders. As discussed in greater detail below, the at-issue domain name is descriptive of the content listed on Respondent’s website, notwithstanding that the website is directly referenced by another domain name. Therefore, Respondent’s use of the <preciouspuppies.com> domain name constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Russell & Miller, Inc. v. Dismar Corp., FA 353039 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 20, 2004) (finding that the respondent used the <salesigns.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, which was established by the respondent’s “longstanding involvement in the ‘sale sign’ market and its use of a descriptive domain name to further its competition in that market”); see also Canned Foods, Inc. v. Ult. Search Inc., FA 96320 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2001) (stating that “Respondent is using the domain <groceryoutlet.com> for a website that links to online resources for groceries and similar goods”).
Importantly, Complainant presents no direct evidence that Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s claims of trademark rights in that name. Rather, Complainant argues from the fact that Respondent registered the domain name that Respondent therefore must have, or should have, known of Complainant’s claim of rights. Complainant does not hold exclusive rights to the generic terms “precious” and “puppies,” and it is more reasonable to conclude that Respondent registered the at-issue domain name to describe his business, rather than to conclude that his intent was to trade on Complainant’s goodwill as embodied in Complainant’s claimed trademark. The terms in the at-issue mark are indeed common terms and while the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark may (or may have) acquire(d) distinctiveness, there is nothing in the record supporting Complainant’s premise that its mark was “famous” or so well known at the time of registration that Respondent would have, or should have, known that he was registering another’s trademark.
In Advanced Drivers Education Products & Training, Inc. v. MDNH, Inc., FA 567039 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2005), the panel concluded that the respondent’s domain name was not used in the trademark sense, but was “a descriptor of the site’s intended content or theme,” and therefore the complainant failed to prove that the respondent lacked any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Like the respondent in Advanced Drivers, Respondent in our case is using the <preciouspuppies.com> domain name in a descriptive sense. Since the mark is not being used in a trademark sense, Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent has not registered or used the <preciouspuppies.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has not violated any of the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) or engaged in any other conduct that would constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Pro Fiducia Treuhand AG, D2001-0916 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2001) (finding that where the respondent has not attempted to sell the domain name for profit, has not engaged in a pattern of conduct depriving others of the ability to obtain domain names corresponding to their trademarks, is not a competitor of the complainant seeking to disrupt the complainant's business, and is not using the domain name to divert Internet users for commercial gain, lack of bona fide use on its own is insufficient to establish bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (finding that the complainant failed to establish that respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because mere assertions of bad faith are insufficient for a complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
that Respondent’s use of the <preciouspuppies.com> domain name is likely to
disrupt Complainant’s business, and that Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name may divert confused customers to
Respondent’s website. But Complainant
fails to convince the Panel that disruption and confusion were the reasons for
Respondent’s registration of <preciouspuppies.com>, rather than
simply the perceived result of such registration. Respondent denies that he had any knowledge
of Complainant at the time of the at-issue domain name’s registration. From the evidence presented, Respondent does not appear to have
had actual knowledge
of Complainant and/or its business at the time he registered the at-issue
domain name, and the Panel cannot infer from the record that Respondent should
have had such knowledge. At the time
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name in February 2002, Complainant
did not hold a registered trademark for the PRECIOUS PUPPIES mark, and had only
one store in
Finally, Complainant’s mark is comprised of the common terms “precious” and “puppies” which, when used together, are not an exclusive identifier of Complainant’s business. As mentioned above, the terms, as used in the at-issue domain name, describe an aspect of Respondent’s business rather than identify the sources of his goods or services. Respondent’s <preciouspuppies.com> domain name is comprised of common terms used in the pet industry and elsewhere. Since any compelling evidence supporting Respondent having a bad faith intent in registering and using the at-issue domain name is lacking, the Panel has an additional basis to find that Respondent did not register or use the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Vitello v. Castello, FA 159460 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“As to both registration and use, the generic nature of the disputed domain name itself rebuts any allegation by Complainant that Respondent registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith.”); see also Target Brands, Inc. v. Eastwind Group, FA 267475 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 9, 2004) (holding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <target.org> domain name was not in bad faith because the complainant’s TARGET mark is a generic term).
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: August 10, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum