Green Flag Limited v. Domain Admin c/o Dynadot Privacy
Claim Number: FA0902001249915
Complainant is Green
Flag Limited (“Complainant”), represented by James A.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <greenflaginsurance.com>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 27, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 27, 2009.
On March 9, 2009, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <greenflaginsurance.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC 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 March 12, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 1, 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@greenflaginsurance.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 8, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
The
trademark on which this complaint is based is “GREEN FLAG” (also sometimes
referred to as “Complainant’s Mark”).
Complainant, Green Flag Limited, was founded in 1971 as “National
Breakdown,” as a recovery service for stranded motorists. Re-named “Green Flag” in 1994, Complainant
offers vehicle breakdown cover insurance, as well as personal cover insurance,
to over five million customers across the
Complainant
holds numerous trademark registrations for its “GREEN FLAG” mark.
Complainant’s Mark has been registered with the United Kingdom
Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) since February 1993 and the EU Office
for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) since December 1999. Complainant uses its “GREEN FLAG” mark in
promoting and providing breakdown and personal cover insurance in the
An
important component of Complainant’s business is to provide customers with the
ability to purchase insurance coverage over the Internet and obtain information
about Complainant’s services.
Complainant, through its parent company RBS, owns several domain name
registrations that feature its well-known “GREEN FLAG” mark, including
<greenflag.com> and <greenflagf3.com>, both of which resolve to
Complainant’s main website. Complainant
utilizes these domain names in connection with the promotion and operation of
its business as well as a medium to provide online support to its customers.
As
the foregoing indicates, and by virtue of Complainant’s established and
well-known presence in the insurance marketplace and Complainant’s significant
commitment to the marketing and advertising of its “GREEN FLAG” mark,
Complainant has built up substantial goodwill in and rights to this mark.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL
GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on
the following factual and legal grounds:
a. The
Domain Name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant
has rights.
The Domain Name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark because it fully incorporates
Complainant’s Mark, and merely adds the generic or descriptive word
“insurance,” followed by a the top-level domain name extension, “.com,” which
does not make the Domain Name distinct. Complainant’s Mark is the dominant and
distinctive element of the Domain Name, and the Domain Name strongly conveys
the impression of sponsorship by or association with Complainant. Indeed, Respondent appears to have chosen the
Domain Name for that very reason, which makes the Domain Name confusingly
similar to Complainant’s Mark.
Previous administrative
panels and arbitrators have repeatedly concluded that a domain name that
appropriates another party’s trademark with only slight variations, such as the
addition of a generic or descriptive term and a generic top-level domain name
extension, remains confusingly similar to the other party’s mark. As referenced above, Complainant’s business
centers around offering vehicle breakdown cover insurance, as well as personal
cover insurance, to customers through the Internet. Indeed, the National Arbitration Forum has
specifically held that the addition of the generic or descriptive term
“insurance” does not make distinct an otherwise confusingly similar domain
name. See
Churchill Insurance Company Limited v Neil Charlton, FA 912281 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Mar. 12, 2007) (finding the domain name <churchhill-insurance.com>
confusingly similar to the complainant’s “CHURCHILL” mark because the “extra
addition” of the term “insurance” “failed to sufficiently differentiate the
disputed domain name from the mark”). In
fact, “[a] general rule under [ICANN] Policy
¶4(a)(i) is that a domain name is confusingly similar to a third-party mark
where the domain name fully incorporates the mark and simply adds additional
words that correspond to the goods or services offered by the third party under
the mark.” Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. 0-0 Adult Video
Corp., FA 475214 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 27, 2005)
(finding the domain names <sonycdplayer.com>, <sonyreceiver.com>, and <sonyremote.com> confusingly similar to the complainant’s “SONY”
mark). Thus,
Respondent’s addition of the term “insurance,” to Complainant’s Mark does not
distinguish the Domain Name, but rather only adds to the confusion given the
connection between the generic term “insurance” and Complainant’s insurance
services. In addition, the generic
top-level domain name extension “.com” is irrelevant to the analysis of
confusing similarity. See Gardline
Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA
153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003)
(“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or
not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a
required element of every domain name”).
Additionally, Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar Domain Name to
redirect Internet users to a directory site with links to insurance products
and services similar to Complainant’s products and services further increases
the likelihood of confusion.
Respondent is using the Domain Name to redirect to a website that
displays links to various providers of insurance products and services. Respondent’s use of the Domain Name in this
manner increases the likelihood of consumer confusion by causing consumers to
mistakenly believe they have reached a website sponsored by or associated with
the Complainant. See Cancer
Treatment Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Chan, Case. No. D2003-0611 (WIPO
Sept. 18, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of the domain names
(<cancercenterofamerica.com> and
<cancertreatmentcenterofamerica.com>) to display search results for
cancer treatment centers increased the likelihood that an Internet user would
mistakenly believe the respondent’s websites were associated with the
complainant). Accordingly,
Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website
displaying links for insurance products and services increases the
likelihood of consumer confusion.
In light of the foregoing, Complainant respectfully asserts that it has met its burden of establishing that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark.
b. Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
Respondent has no right to or legitimate interest in the
Domain Name. Complainant has not
licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s “GREEN FLAG”
mark, or any variation thereof, in the Domain Name or otherwise. Any value the Domain Name may have is derived
solely by the incorporation of Complainant’s Mark. See Am. West Airlines v. N. Am.
Leasing, LLC, FA 0232956 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Mar. 18, 2004) (finding that the domain names, including
<americawestacations.com>, had value only on account of the incorporation
of the complainant’s mark [“AMERICA WEST”], which the respondent had utilized
without authorization by the complainant).
Respondent registered the Domain Name on August 29, 2008. This was over fifteen (15) years after Complainant
first registered the “GREEN FLAG” mark in 1993.
Under the
ICANN Policy, when the Complainant has demonstrated rights in a domain name,
the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that it has rights in the
name. ICANN Policy ¶4(c)(i)–(iii) provides three situations under which a
respondent would have rights in a domain name:
(i)
before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable
preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii)
you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly
known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service
mark rights; or
(iii)
you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert
consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Respondent cannot establish any
of these situations and, therefore, cannot demonstrate any rights or legitimate
interests in the Domain Name.
Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to
misdirect Internet users to a directory website featuring links to other
websites, particularly to the websites of Complainant’s competitors, does not
constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under ICANN Policy. For example, Respondent’s website
provided links entitled “Car Insurance Quote” and “GEICO Car Insurance,” in
direct correlation to Complainant’s insurance coverage services. By clicking these links, Internet
users were redirected to the web pages of companies providing services in
competition with Complainant, as well as websites containing further
advertising for and links to the websites of competing insurance
providers. Thus, it
appears that Respondent attempted to capitalize on Complainant’s well-known
mark by attracting Internet users, including Complainant’s current and
prospective customers, to its website and redirecting them to Complainant’s
competitors, presumably in exchange for “click-through” fees.
Such
use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See National Westminster Bank plc v. 121 Internet c/o Direct
Communication, FA 0671023 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2006) (holding
that the respondent’s use of the domain name to divert Internet users to the
respondent’s own website containing links to the complainant’s direct
competitors 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)); Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 0180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking
Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit
is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”); TM
Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 0132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec.
31, 2002) (finding the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in
several domain names, including <century21alaska.com>, where “Respondent appropriated Complainant’s CENTURY 21 mark and used it to
redirect Internet users to a website that hosts links to websites offering
products in competition with Complainant. Respondent’s diversionary uses alone
would deny it the protections of Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and
(iii); Respondent’s diversion to websites of Complainant’s competitors only reinforces
this conclusion.”)
Nor does it appear that
Respondent has ever been commonly known by “greenflaginsurance,” “Green Flag
Insurance” or the Domain Name. See
ICANN Policy ¶4(c)(ii). To the contrary, Respondent registered the
Domain Name under the name “Domain Admin c/o Dynadot Privacy,” which has no
genuine relation to the mark “GREEN FLAG” or Complainant. This constitutes further evidence that the
Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. See, e.g., Wells Fargo
&
Finally,
the Domain Name displayed the following at the top of the website to which it
resolved: “[t]his domain may be for sale by its owner!” Respondent’s offer to sell the Domain Name is
therefore further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). See LD Products, Inc. v.
Hubert Herr c/o Unternehmensberatung, FA 1223933 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Oct. 28, 2008) (holding, with respect to the respondent’s offer to sell the
disputed domain name soon after its registration, that “Respondent’s
willingness to part with the disputed domain name is evidence of a lack of
rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).”); Turner
Entertainment Co. v. David Fagle, FA 0440216 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 2, 2005)
(finding, given complainant’s rights in the mark “THE REAL GILLIGAN’S ISLAND”,
that “[r]espondent’s offer to sell the domain name registration is evidence
that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
<therealgilligansisland.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii)”).
In
light of the foregoing, Complainant respectfully asserts that it has met its
burden of proving that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
respect to the Domain Name.
c. The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad
faith.
Complainant’s
“GREEN FLAG” mark is a registered trademark and well-known in the
Further,
Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to divert Internet users to its
directory/link site constitutes registration and use primarily for the purpose
of disrupting Complainant’s business pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii).
In National Westminster
Bank plc v. [Registrant], the Panel found that the respondent’s registration and use
of the disputed domain name to operate a website that promoted the
complainant’s direct competitors with hyperlinks and advertisements constituted
registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). FA 1212874
(Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 8, 2008). According to the Panel, such use “clearly
disrupts Complainant’s business as it encourages Internet users to conduct
business with Complainant’s competitors.”
Additionally,
ICANN policy dictates that bad faith can be established by evidence
demonstrating that “by using the domain name, [Respondent has] intentionally
attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web
site. . . , by creating a likelihood of confusion
with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or
endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on
[Respondent’s] web site or location.”
ICANN Policy ¶4(b)(iv) (Emphasis
added). In State
Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jackson, FA 314119 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
28, 2004), where the respondent used the domain name <wwwstatefarminsurance.com>
to operate a website that provided links to insurance websites which competed
with the complainant State Farm, the panel inferred that the respondent was
using the confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain and concluded
that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant
to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
In the present case, as in State Farm, Respondent likely used the
Domain Name to attract Complainant’s customers to its website for its own
commercial gain and therefore, has acted in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
Moreover,
it can be inferred that Respondent has profited through referral fees by
diverting Internet users seeking Complainant’s services to competitors’
websites. See State Farm Mutual Auto.
Ins. Co. v. Unasi, Inc., FA
521055 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2005) (inferring that the
respondent received click-through fees for diverting Internet users searching
for the complainant to the complainant’s competitors, and finding that the
respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant
to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s registered
domain names contained confusingly similar versions of the complainant’s
well-known mark “STATE FARM”). Thus,
Respondent was likely exploiting Complainant’s famous name and mark to divert
Complainant’s customers or prospective customers away from Complainant’s site
and to the sites of its competitors for Respondent’s own commercial gain.
For these reasons, Complainant respectfully asserts that it has met its burden of proving that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Green Flag Limited, was founded in 1971 as a
recovery service for stranded motorists.
Complainant was re-branded in 1994 as “Green Flag” and has provided
personal insurance as well as vehicle break-down insurance for over five
million customers across the
Respondent registered the <greenflaginsurance.com> domain name on August 29, 2008. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website displaying click-through advertising for third party web sites.
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds Complainant’s trademark registrations for
the GREEN FLAG mark with the UKIPO and OHIM each confer upon Complainant
sufficient rights in the mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v.
Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (holding that
the complainants established rights in marks because the marks were registered
with a trademark authority); see also Royal
Bank of Scot. Group plc, Direct Line Ins. plc, & Privilege Ins. Co. Ltd. v.
Demand Domains, c/o C.S.C., FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 2, 2006)
(holding that registration of the PRIVILEGE mark with the
Respondent’s <greenflaginsurance.com> domain
name differs from Complainant’s GREEN FLAG mark in the following manners: (1)
the space in the mark is omitted; (2) the generic top-level domain “.com” has
been added; and (3) the descriptive term “insurance” has been added. The Panel notes the removal of spaces and the
addition of a top-level domain name are not (and cannot be) material to a
Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis. See
Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i)
satisfied.
Complainant has alleged Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Based upon the allegations made in the Complaint, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii), shifting the burden of proof to Respondent. Since Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, the Panel may presume Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii). However, the Panel in its discretion chooses to examine the record to determine whether Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests pursuant to the factors outlined in Policy ¶4(c). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must 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 interest in the subject domain names.”); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”).
Complainant has alleged Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Respondent is not authorized or otherwise permitted to use Complainant’s marks in any fashion. Respondent has not provided any contrary evidence to these assertions. The Panel also notes the WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Domain Admin c/o Dynadot Privacy,” which is a nominee registration. Without any controverting evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that
displays links for third party web sites.
The Panel presumes Respondent receives some type of referral fee for the
placement of these advertisements. The
Panel finds Respondent has failed to make actual use or demonstrable
preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with 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)). See
Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007)
(holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar
domain name 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)); see
also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA
970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a
pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a
bona fide offering of goods or
services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or
not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent
is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii)
satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed
domain name resolves to a website that displays advertisements and links for
third party web site. Internet users
seeking Complainant would be diverted to this website and be confronted with
such links (some of which may compete with Complainant to varying
degrees). Such links will cause
confusion and might well divert some of Complainant’s potential customer to
third party sites (which would disrupt Complainant’s business). Complainant specifically claims the reason
for the registration was to disrupt Complainant’s business and this isn’t
refuted. The Panel finds Respondent has
engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under
Policy ¶4(b)(iii) through this disruption of
Complainant’s business.
As mentioned previously, the confusingly similar disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website that promotes third party web sites. While these third party web sites do not appear to directly compete with Complainant, car insurance companies often offer breakdown insurance as an addendum to their policies (although Complainant’s business seems to be broader than that). Respondent has created some confusion as to Complainant’s source, endorsement, affiliation, and sponsorship of the disputed domain name and corresponding website. The Panel finds Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”); see also MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme).
Respondent’s use of a nominee to register the <greenflaginsurance.com>
domain – a famous mark - suggests (in the absence of a response) the
registration and use of the <greenflaginsurance.com> domain was
not in good faith.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii)
satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <greenflaginsurance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dated: Friday, April 22, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum