Endurance Specialty Holdings
Ltd. v. Insight
Claim Number: FA0901001242362
PARTIES
Complainant is Endurance Specialty Holdings Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by David
M. Perry, of Blank Rome LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <endurancere.com>,
registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has
acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has
no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Maninder Singh as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on January 12, 2009; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 13, 2009.
On January 13, 2009, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to
the National Arbitration Forum that the <endurancere.com> domain name is
registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network
Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 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 January 16, 2009, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 5, 2009 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 postmaster@endurancere.com by
e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 4, 2009.
An Additional Submission was received from Complainant on February 9,
2009, which was determined to be timely and complete under the National
Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7.
On 12.02.2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the National Arbitration Forum
appointed Maninder Singh as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
·
Complainant, Endurance Specialty Holdings Ltd.
has, inter-alia, contended that the
“Endurance”, is a holding company for insurance and reinsurance businesses with
a market capitalization of over $1.7 billion and traded on the New York Stock
Exchange, and brings this Complaint on behalf of itself and in the name of one
of its subsidiaries, Endurance Reinsurance Corporation of America (“Endurance
Re”), 750 Third Ave, Floors 18 & 19 New York, NY 10017, United States.
·
Complainant
contends that Endurance was formed in 2001 and its subsidiary Endurance Re was
incorporated under the state laws of
·
It is
also the contention of the Complainant that its subsidiary company, Endurance
Re has been in the national public eye for years, since at least as early as
December 2002 and it conducts its business across the entire
·
Complainant
is stated to be registered to do business throughout the
·
Along
with the Exhibit D, Internet printouts have also been filed along with the Complaint
as evidence for the contention of the Complainant regarding recognition and
secondary meaning that ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ENDURANCE
REINSURANCE and ENDURANCE – have obtained through the user of the marks by the
Complainant.
·
It is
further the contention of the Complainant that Respondent had registered the
domain name <endurancere.com>
on December 3, 2002, but Respondent has not developed content on the site and
it rather, appears to be using the disputed domain name ostensibly to earn
click-through revenue by displaying a series of hyperlinks that open to
websites not owned by Complainant. The complainant in this regard has attached
as Exhibit F the printouts of
current parking pages of the disputed domain.
·
Complainant
further contends that Respondent is not the first to wrongfully exploit
Complainant’s valuable marks as domain names. The complainant has relied upon
the following decisions of National Arbitration Forum:
(i)
Endurance
Specialty Holdings Ltd. v Texas International Property Associates, FA 1103617 (Dec. 27, 2007) (transferring
<endurancespecialty.com> to Complainant);
(ii)
Endurance
Specialty Holdings Ltd. v. Marketing Total S.A., FA 1103590 (Dec. 12, 2007) (transferring
<endurancereinsurance.com> to Complainant).
·
While
referring to an e-mail correspondence dated Dec. 15, 2008 (Exhibit G), the
Complainant has further contended that Respondent has recently attempted to
extort a sum of $440,000 from Complainant for the transfer of the <endurancere.com> domain. It is
observed from the said e-mail that Respondent while claiming to be the owner a
registered company viz. “Endurance Rebranding Limited”, has laid a claim to the
domain name in question.
·
The
complainant alleges that the said company (Endurance Rebranding Limited) was
not registered until December 15, 2008, i.e. the day when the Respondent had sent
the e-mail Exhibit G claiming to be the owner of a registered company. In this
regard Complainant has relied upon the Certificate of Incorporation of a
Private Limited Company (Exhibit H) and
Companies House listing (Exhibit I).
The date of registration in Exhibits H & I is that of five days after the
Complainant’s e-mail dt. 10.12.05 which, as per the Complainant, raises the possibility
of pursuing a UDRP proceeding in this matter (Exhibit G).
·
It is
further the contention of the Complainant that in the course of doing business
in the Bermuda reinsurance industry, Respondent might have come to know about
the Complainant’s valuable business and trademarks at all times relevant to the
registration of the <endurancere.com>
domain and subsequent use of the domain, and appears to have had the actual
knowledge of Complainant’s valuable marks during the attempt to extract
$440,000 from Complainant. The Complainant has referred to profile of Hugh
Murray-Mason attached with the complaint as Exhibit J, seeking to demonstrate Mr. Murray-Mason’s familiarity
with the Bermuda reinsurance industry.
·
Complainant
further contended that even if the Respondent did not work in the
·
Complainant
has further contended that through continuous and exclusive use of the
distinctive service marks - ENDURANCE REINSURANCE, ENDURANCE, and ENDURANCE
REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA since at least as early as December 2001 (in
the case of ENDURANCE) and from December 2002 (in the case of ENDURANCE
REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA and ENDURANCE REINSURANCE), and through the
extensive use of related ENDURANCE marks in the insurance industry (e.g.,
ENDURANCE SPECIALTY HOLDINGS LTD.), Complainant’s marks have acquired
significant goodwill. The Complainant is stated to have thus become well-known
as ENDURANCE REINSURANCE in the insurance industry in connection with
Complainant’s reinsurance business.
·
Exhibit D also contains Internet printouts evincing the recognition and secondary
meaning that ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ENDURANCE
REINSURANCE, and ENDURANCE have obtained through Complainant’s use of the
marks:
·
Printouts
from the website of Complainant describing Endurance Reinsurance Corporation of
America as a licensed, Delaware domestic insurer for all lines of property and
casualty insurance and reinsurance and as an accredited reinsurer, listing
ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA as one of the subsidiary
companies, and using the ENDURANCE logo to advertise ENDURANCE REINSURANCE
CORPORATION OF AMERICA.
·
Printouts
from Internet articles advertising, promoting and/or discussing Complainant by
the mark ENDURANCE REINSURANCE, including: a brochure from Hudson Valley
Economic Development Corporation, a listing from the Wilshire Grand Los
Angeles, and news captions from ResearchAndMarkets.com and Westchester County
Business Briefs.
·
Printout
from the website of the designer of the original ENDURANCE logo, explaining the
origin of the logo, and stating “Endurance Reinsurance was poised to take over
the world in 2001 and demanded a logo as dynamic and unique as they are.”
·
Excerpt
from a regular publication of Complainant providing information to clients,
using the ENDURANCE logo and the “ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA”
name in the titles of employees and in other company contact information.
·
Article
entitled “Endurance Reinsurance Corp. of America Receives A- Rating” in the
national publication Insurance Journal.
·
Printout
of the financial strength and issuer credit ratings of the “Endurance
Reinsurance Corp of
B. Respondent
·
The Respondent has contended that the Complainant has not been
able to show and demonstrate any rights over the word “RE” either through the “Service
Mark Principle Register” Exhibit D with the Complaint.
·
The registration by the Respondent is of 03-Dec-2002. The Respondent has also referred to “Service Mark
Principle Register” on Complainant’s
Exhibit-D, there
is no mention anywhere of Endurancere, Endurance Re, Endurance-re,
Endurance-Re. etc... They do NOT use
the term “Re” in ANY of
their advertising, branding, website, corporate or financial based documentation.
They refer to it as “house mark”
whatever that is legally?... and state “and it is commonplace in the
reinsurance industry for companies to be referred to by a house mark followed
by the term RE”. The Respondent
has also referred to Exhibit P.
·
Respondent is wishing to use domain for Endurance Rebranding Ltd.
for Respondent’s livelihood and career. The Respondent has referred to various
Exhibits with the Complaint to stress the point that the Complainant is not
known for the mark Endurance Re.
·
Respondent has contended of its legitimate interest in the domain
for his business, career and livelihood.
·
Respondent has contended that it requires the domain name and the
Respondent has not “gone live” or activated the website Exhibit R due to his employment circumstances, as a
Non-Bermudian working in
·
Respondent has further contended that it has not operated the domain in “Bad
Faith”. No moneys have
ever been received by Respondent relating to this domain from “click through
revenues” as stated by Complainant above.
·
Respondent has denied the allegation that the Respondent had attempted
to “extort” 440,000 for the domain. Respondent has denied all the allegations and
has contended that none of the ingredients of the policy for sustaining the
complaint of the Complainant, are existing in the present case.
C. Additional Submissions
·
Respondent
alleges that complainant has made no attempt to brand itself ‘Endurance Re.”
Response p.5, emphasis in original. Respondent here ignores the evidence
submitted by Complainant in its Exhibit C, which includes a press release dated
November 19, 2002 (before Respondent’s December 3, 2002 registration of
the domain). Further, Complainant’s Exhibit C contains evidence that third
parties refer to Complainant as Endurance Re. Complainant successfully used the
mark ENDURANCE RE in commerce and established common law rights in the mark before
Respondent’s registration of the domain.
·
Respondent’s
argument that Complainant’s “Corporate Organization Chart” contains no
reference to ENDURANCE RE is not persuasive. Complainant’s entity has the full
name Endurance Reinsurance, but Complainant uses the brand name ENDURANCE RE in
addition to the full name Endurance Reinsurance. Using Respondent’s reasoning,
The Coca-Cola Company would not be able to demonstrate common law rights
through the usage of COKE because it does not have an entity with that name.
This is nonsensical.
·
Respondent’s
statement that it “has NOT attempted to obtain moneys for the domain {and} he
was not keen to sell the domain” (Response p.12, emphasis in original) is
patently false. The parties do not dispute that Respondent asked for $440,000
for the domain name to fund his start-up costs for a new business. When
Complainant proposed a counteroffer of $5,000, Respondent replied: “I am not
about to let go of my ‘plan B’ (Endurance Rebranding Limited) for less than
previously outlined, so either your offer seriously comes to the table, or
please feel free to pursue whatever channels you feel Endurance Specialty
Holdings is entitled, at your cost.” Complainant’s Exhibit G. Respondent
thereby continued his attempts to exploit the domain name in bad faith and
obtain a large sum of money from Complainant.
·
Respondent
now plainly admits that “Respondent not [sic] currently known by domain name
endurancere for Endurance Rebranding, but intends to be.” Response p.13. Intent
to use a mark and be known by it, without demonstrable preparations, is not
sufficient to avoid transfer of the domain. See
RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001)
(interpreting Policy 4(c)(ii) “to require a showing that one has been commonly
known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail”);
see also Complaint p.8. Further, there is no evidence that the not-live website
that Respondent offers as demonstrable preparations to use the mark was created
before any notice of a possible UDRP complaint. See Policy 4(c)(i); see
also Complaint p.7. Thus, Respondent lacks any legitimate interests or rights
in the domain.
·
Though
the Panel had felt to accept the objection taken by the Complainant in the
Additional Submissions on the ground that the Response by the Respondent is in
violation of the 15-page limit prescribed by para 5(a) of the NAF Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy applied in an earlier decision of WIPO in
the case of Schott Glas & Nec/Schott
Components Corp. vs. Necschott, D2001-0127 (WIPO March 14, 2001), however,
eventually has taken into account the contentions raised on behalf of the
Respondent, in deciding the present dispute.
FINDINGS
The panel finds that the domain <endurancere.com> deserves to be transferred to the Complainant and the Respondent is not entitled to use this domain name.
DISCUSSION
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
the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an
order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1)
the
domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to
a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2)
the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
and
(3)
the
domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
With reference to
Clause 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant has relied upon the decision in
the case of 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 had demonstrated
that its mark had acquired secondary meaning.
The Complainant has further relied upon the decision in the case of Ass’n
of Tex. Prof’l Educators, Inc. v. Salvia Corp., FA 685104 (Nat. Arb. Forum
May 31, 2006), holding that the complainant had demonstrated common law rights
in the ATPE mark through continuous use of the mark in connection with
educational services for years prior to the respondent’s registration of the
domain name containing the mark.
The Complainant
has also contended that by simply abbreviating the mark to “ENDURANCERE,”
removing the space between terms, and adding the generic top-level domain
(“gTLD”) “.com,” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a
complainant’s mark under Policy 4(a)(i). The Complainant has referred to the
earlier decision of the Forum in the case of David Hall Rare Coins v. Texas
International Property Associates, FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007),
finding <davidhallrarecoins.com> to be identical to the mark DAVID HALL
RARE COINS.
The Complainant
has accordingly contended that since Respondent’s domain name of <endurancere.com> is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s registration rights and common law rights in the
ENDURANCE RE mark, the ENDURANCE REINSURANCE mark, the distinctive portion of
Complainant’s ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA mark, and
Complainant’s other uses of the distinctive ENDURANCE mark, the requirement for
domain name transfer stated in Policy 4(a)(i) is satisfied.
The Panel finds
that Complainant has rights in the ENDURANCE mark pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i) through its trademark
registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,434,667 issued May 27, 2008). The Complainant has referred to the case of Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007), finding that the complainant’s federal
trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were
adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Complainant has also relied upon Intel
Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26,
2006), finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM,
CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO.
Complainant contends that it has used the ENDURANCE mark continuously in commerce since 2001. However, Complainant has not furnished any evidence that its use of the ENDURANCE mark commenced any earlier than December 19, 2002, though Complainant does present a USPTO certificate which lists the date of first use of the ENDURANCE mark in commerce as December, 2001. The Panel finds that the ENDURANCE mark, through its public identification with Complainant’s work, has acquired secondary meaning since its first use in commerce in 2001, and that therefore, Complainant has common law rights since at least as early as 2001 in the ENDURANCE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Complainant has relied upon the case of Toyota Sunnyvale v. Adfero Publ’g Co., FA 921194 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007), concluding that the complainant’s TOYOTA SUNNYVALE mark had acquired secondary meaning sufficient for it to establish common law rights in the mark through continuous and extensive use of the mark since 2003 in connection with a car dealership under that mark.
Complainant
contends that Respondent’s <endurancere.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its ENDURANCE mark. The <endurancere.com> domain name differs from Complainant’s mark in two ways:
(1) the letters “re” have been added to the end of the mark; and (2) the
generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” has been added to the end of the
mark. The Panel finds that if two
letters are added to mark, the resulting domain name is still confusingly
similar to the mark. The Complainant has
referred to Victoria’s Secret v.
Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000), finding that, by
misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a
distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to
the complainant’s marks. The Complaint
has also referred to the case of Isleworth
Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002),
holding that “[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level
domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”. The Complainant has referred to the case of Am. Online, Inc. v. Amigos On Line RJ,
FA 115041 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 28, 2002), finding that the <aolrj.com>
domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark because “…the
addition of a string of indiscriminate letters to a famous mark in a second
level domain does not differentiate the domain name from the mark.”. The Panel also finds that adding a gTLD to a mark also
fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from that mark, because every
domain name must include a top-level domain.
The Complainant has also relied upon the case of Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007), finding
that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient
to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that these changes to the ENDURANCE mark do not minimize or
eliminate the resulting likelihood of confusion, and so Respondent’s <endurancere.com>
domain name is not sufficiently
distinguished from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, is clearly of the view that the Complainant has
made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the
burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate
interests. See Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13,
2007) (finding that once a prima facie case
has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the
respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)); see also AOL
LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
Complainant contends
in its Complaint and Additional Submission that Respondent is not commonly
known by the <endurancere.com> domain name nor has it ever been the
owner or licensee of the ENDURANCE mark.
The WHOIS record for the disputed domain name lists Respondent as “Insight.” Respondent claims to be doing business under
the name “Endurance Rebranding Limited,” but Complainant notes that Respondent
only registered itself as a business with that name five days after Complainant
contacted Respondent regarding this dispute over the <endurancere.com> domain name. The Panel
therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <endurancere.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). It would be useful to
refer to the decision in the case of Reese
v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Apr. 5, 2007), concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by
the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record
showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including
the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not
authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name; see also Wells
Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed
domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is
not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
Respondent is using the <endurancere.com>
domain name to bring Internet users to a website that features links
to third-party websites unrelated to Complainant. The
Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the
<endurancere.com> domain name is neither 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). See Imation Corp. v.
Streut, FA 125759 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 8, 2002) (finding no rights
or legitimate interest where the respondent used the disputed domain name to
redirect Internet users to an online casino); see also Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v.
Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Oct. 17, 2003) (“Respondent's use of a domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to
Complainant's business does not represent 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).”).
Complainant also contends in its Complaint and Additional Submission that Respondent made an offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for $440,000. In Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007), the panel held that “[a]n attempt by a respondent to sell a domain name to a complainant who owns a trademark with which the domain name is confusingly similar for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs has been held to demonstrate a lack of legitimate rights or interests.” The Panel finds that in this case, Respondent’s offer to sell demonstrates a similar lack of legitimate rights or interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Drown Corp. v. Premier Wine & Spirits, FA 616805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2006) (“Moreover, the Panel interprets Respondent’s offer to sell the domain name registration for $100,000 as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Complainant contends in its Complaint and Additional Submission that Respondent has made an offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for an amount in excess of the cost to Respondent, and that this offer to sell is evidence that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). The Panel finds that under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), Respondent has registered the <endurancere.com> domain name in bad faith. See Campmor, Inc. v. GearPro.com, FA 197972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 5, 2003) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name and offered to sell it to Complainant for $10,600. This demonstrates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Meeting Point Co., D2000-1245 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent made no use of the domain names except to offer them to sale to the complainant).
Complainant also contends that
because Respondent operates in the same area and industry as Complainant, it is
highly likely that Respondent opportunistically registered the disputed domain
name in bad faith. The Panel finds that
Respondent’s circumstances support an inference of opportunistic bad faith on
the part of Respondent, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
Tech. Props., Inc. v. Hussain,
FA 95411 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (“The Respondent took
advantage of the public announcement that Tandy Corporation was changing its
name to RadioShack by registering the domain names on the same day as a public
announcement of a company’s name change.
This is also evidence of bad faith.”); see also 3M Co. v. Jeong, FA 505494 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2005) (“Respondent’s registration of
the disputed domain name the same day that Complainant issued the press release
regarding the acquisition constitutes opportunistic bad faith.”).
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 <endurancere.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum