national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

drugstore.com, inc. v. Domain Management SPM

Claim Number: FA0908001279180

 

PARTIES

Complainant is drugstore.com, inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is Domain Management SPM (“Respondent”), Western Samoa.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <b3eauty.com>, <b4eauty.com>, <bdeauty.com>, <be3auty.com>, <be4auty.com>, <beau5ty.com>, <beau6ty.com>, <beau7ty.com>, <beau8ty.com>, <beaugty.com>, <beaujty.com>, <beaut5y.com>, <beaut6y.com>, <beaut7y.com>, <beauyty.com>, <bedauty.com>, <beqauty.com>, <berauty.com>, <bewauty.com>, <bgeauty.com>, <bheauty.com>, <bneauty.com>, <breauty.com>, <bveauty.com>, <bweauty.com>, and <ebauty.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.

 

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 11, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 12, 2009.

 

On August 12, 2009, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <b3eauty.com>, <b4eauty.com>, <bdeauty.com>, <be3auty.com>, <be4auty.com>, <beau5ty.com>, <beau6ty.com>, <beau7ty.com>, <beau8ty.com>, <beaugty.com>, <beaujty.com>, <beaut5y.com>, <beaut6y.com>, <beaut7y.com>, <beauyty.com>, <bedauty.com>, <beqauty.com>, <berauty.com>, <bewauty.com>, <bgeauty.com>, <bheauty.com>, <bneauty.com>, <breauty.com>, <bveauty.com>, <bweauty.com>, and <ebauty.com> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 August 17, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 7, 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@b3eauty.com, postmaster@b4eauty.com, postmaster@bdeauty.com, postmaster@be3auty.com, postmaster@be4auty.com, postmaster@beau5ty.com, postmaster@beau6ty.com, postmaster@beau7ty.com, postmaster@beau8ty.com, postmaster@beaugty.com, postmaster@beaujty.com, postmaster@beaut5y.com, postmaster@beaut6y.com, postmaster@beaut7y.com, postmaster@beauyty.com, postmaster@bedauty.com, postmaster@beqauty.com, postmaster@berauty.com, postmaster@bewauty.com, postmaster@bgeauty.com, postmaster@bheauty.com, postmaster@bneauty.com, postmaster@breauty.com, postmaster@bveauty.com, postmaster@bweauty.com, and postmaster@ebauty.com by e-mail.

 

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

 

On September 14, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <b3eauty.com>, <b4eauty.com>, <bdeauty.com>, <be3auty.com>, <be4auty.com>, <beau5ty.com>, <beau6ty.com>, <beau7ty.com>, <beau8ty.com>, <beaugty.com>, <beaujty.com>, <beaut5y.com>, <beaut6y.com>, <beaut7y.com>, <beauyty.com>, <bedauty.com>, <beqauty.com>, <berauty.com>, <bewauty.com>, <bgeauty.com>, <bheauty.com>, <bneauty.com>, <breauty.com>, <bveauty.com>, <bweauty.com>, and <ebauty.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BEAUTY.COM mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <b3eauty.com>, <b4eauty.com>, <bdeauty.com>, <be3auty.com>, <be4auty.com>, <beau5ty.com>, <beau6ty.com>, <beau7ty.com>, <beau8ty.com>, <beaugty.com>, <beaujty.com>, <beaut5y.com>, <beaut6y.com>, <beaut7y.com>, <beauyty.com>, <bedauty.com>, <beqauty.com>, <berauty.com>, <bewauty.com>, <bgeauty.com>, <bheauty.com>, <bneauty.com>, <breauty.com>, <bveauty.com>, <bweauty.com>, and <ebauty.com> domain names.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <b3eauty.com>, <b4eauty.com>, <bdeauty.com>, <be3auty.com>, <be4auty.com>, <beau5ty.com>, <beau6ty.com>, <beau7ty.com>, <beau8ty.com>, <beaugty.com>, <beaujty.com>, <beaut5y.com>, <beaut6y.com>, <beaut7y.com>, <beauyty.com>, <bedauty.com>, <beqauty.com>, <berauty.com>, <bewauty.com>, <bgeauty.com>, <bheauty.com>, <bneauty.com>, <breauty.com>, <bveauty.com>, <bweauty.com>, and <ebauty.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Beauty.com, Inc., is an online destination for prestige beauty products, including more than 200 brands of widely recognized or niche products.  Complainant launched its website at the <beauty.com> domain name in August of 1997, and has used its BEAUTY.COM mark continuously in commerce since November of 1999.  Complainant has registered its BEAUTY.COM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,178,835 issued December 5, 2006, filed August 6, 1999). 

 

Respondent, Domain Management SPM, registered the disputed <b3eauty.com>, <b4eauty.com>, <bdeauty.com>, <be3auty.com>, <be4auty.com>, <beau5ty.com>, <beau6ty.com>, <beau7ty.com>, <beau8ty.com>, <beaugty.com>, <beaujty.com>, <beaut5y.com>, <beaut6y.com>, <beaut7y.com>, <beauyty.com>, <bedauty.com>, <beqauty.com>, <berauty.com>, <bewauty.com>, <bgeauty.com>, <bheauty.com>, <bneauty.com>, <breauty.com>, <bveauty.com>, <bweauty.com>, and <ebauty.com> domain names no earlier than May 5, 2006.  All of the disputed domain names, with the exception of the <ebauty.com> domain name, resolve to Complainant’s website at the <beauty.com> domain name in violation of Respondent’s affiliate agreement with Complainant.  The <ebauty.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website.

 

Respondent has been the respondent in another UDRP proceeding wherein the disputed domain names were transferred from Respondent to the respective complainant in that cases.  See Gaiam, Inc. v. Domain Mgmt. SPM, FA 1237207 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 19, 2009).

 

DISCUSSION

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

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has demonstrated its registration of the BEAUTY.COM mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,178,835 issued December 5, 2006, filed August 6, 1999).  The Panel finds that Complainant therefore has rights in the BEAUTY.COM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  The Panel also finds that the relevant date of rights in the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is not the first date of use of the mark in this instance, as Complainant alleges, but rather the registered mark’s filing date of August 6, 1999.  See AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA 681239 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) (finding that where the complainant had submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, “such evidence establishes complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Planetary Soc’y v. Rosillo, D2001-1228 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2002) (holding that the effective date of Complainant’s trademark rights date back to the application’s filing date); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO “date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent’s registration”).

 

Respondent’s <b3eauty.com>, <b4eauty.com>, <bdeauty.com>, <be3auty.com>, <be4auty.com>, <beau5ty.com>, <beau6ty.com>, <beau7ty.com>, <beau8ty.com>, <beaugty.com>, <beaujty.com>, <beaut5y.com>, <beaut6y.com>, <beaut7y.com>, <beauyty.com>, <bedauty.com>, <beqauty.com>, <berauty.com>, <bewauty.com>, <bgeauty.com>, <bheauty.com>, <bneauty.com>, <breauty.com>, <bveauty.com>, <bweauty.com>, and <ebauty.com> domain names contain Complainant’s BEAUTY.COM mark while adding a single superfluous letter or number in the mark or deleting a letter from the mark.  Such additions are routinely found to be without merit in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.  See, e.g., Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 149187 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent's <marrriott.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant's MARRIOTT mark); see also Granarolo S.p.A. v. Dinoia, FA 649854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (finding that the <granarolo.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered G GRANAROLO mark); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. garybush co uk, FA 360612 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the mark with the mere addition of the nondistinctive number ‘0.’  The addition of the number ‘0’ is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark.”).  The Panel therefore finds that each of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BEAUTY.COM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  The Panel finds that Complainant must set forth a sufficient prima facie case supporting this assertion, before Respondent receives the burden of proving its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  The Panel finds Complainant has set forth a sufficient prima facie case in this instance, and now the burden of proving otherwise lies with Respondent.  See 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 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 under Policy ¶ 4(c), the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

The Panel has no evidence before it that demonstrates Respondent is or ever was commonly known by the disputed domain names.  The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Domain Management SPM,” and Complainant contends that Respondent does not have the authorization necessary to use Complainant’s BEAUTY.COM mark in any fashion.  The Panel therefore finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, as Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark).

 

Complainant has asserted that Respondent is an affiliate of Complainant, and submits a registration agreement indicating that affiliates of Complainant are not permitted to utilize Complainant’s mark in any domain name.  However, the attached affiliate agreement does not demonstrate that Respondent has actually joined this program, as the agreement appears to be a standard template agreement without any evidence of assent by Respondent.  Nevertheless, there is no response from Respondent or other evidence within the record demonstrating that Respondent is not participating in this program.  Therefore, since the record does not clearly counter Complainant’s argument, the Panel is permitted to accept Complainant’s allegation as true given Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint.  See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).  Based on Complainant’s attached screenshots, all of the disputed domain names, with the exception of the <ebauty.com> domain name, resolve to Complainant’s website at the <beauty.com> domain name.  Complainant argues that Respondent receives improper referral fees through this violation of the affiliate agreement.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s violation of the affiliate agreement with respect to these disputed domain names is sufficient evidence in itself that Respondent has not created a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), respectively.  See Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Jablome, FA 124861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (by signing up for the complainant’s affiliate program upon registering the domain name, which was a misspelling of the complainant’s mark, the respondent intended to use the domain name to generate profit at the complainant’s expense, thereby evidencing a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)); see also Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Domhold Co., FA 135011 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (finding that registering a domain name which differs by one letter from the complainant’s commercial website, and using that domain name to redirect Internet consumers to the complainant’s website as a part of the complainant’s affiliate program is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a noncommercial use of the domain name).

 

Complainant contends that some of the disputed domain names resolve to websites that display Complainant’s mark as well as content and keywords related to Complainant’s business.  While Complainant fails to specify which disputed domain names have such a use, the record does include screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving points.  As mentioned previously, the only disputed domain name that appears to not resolve to Complainant’s website is the <ebauty.com> domain name.  However, the attached screenshot demonstrates that there is no resolving website, as the web page submitted indicates that “beauty.com isn’t loading right now.”  Thus, the Panel cannot determine whether the source of the keywords occurred from a web page use by Respondent.  What the evidence does indicate, as opposed to Complainant’s contentions, is that this disputed domain name is not being actively used.  The Panel finds that given the lack of any contrary evidence from Respondent, Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed <ebauty.com> domain name, which indicates a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See TMP Int’l, Inc. v. Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“[T]he Panel concludes that Respondent's [failure to make an active use] of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Kloszewski, FA 204148 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2003) (“Respondent's [failure to make an active use] of the <aolfact.com> domain name for over six months is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.”).

 

Respondent has registered all of the instant domain names while adding or deleting a letter or number from Complainant’s mark.  This practice of manipulating a mark in a domain name to capitalize on an Internet user’s common typographical errors is called “typosquatting,” and serves as evidence alone of a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting in connection with all of the disputed domain names, and has thus demonstrated a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent has been the respondent in other UDRP proceedings wherein the disputed domain names were transferred from Respondent to the respective complainants in those cases.  See Gaiam, Inc. v. Domain Mgmt. SPM, FA 1237207 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 19, 2009).  The Panel finds this to be sufficient evidence, given Respondent’s registration of twenty-six domain names in the instant case, that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See Westcoast Contempo Fashions Ltd. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 814312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants); see also Arai Helmet Americas, Inc. v. Goldmark, D2004-1028 (WIPO Jan. 22, 2005 (finding that “Respondent has registered the disputed domain name, <aria.com>, to prevent Complainant from registering it” and taking notice of another Policy proceeding against the respondent to find that “this is part of a pattern of such registrations”).

 

Respondent has been found to have violated Complainant’s affiliate program agreement with regards to the <b3eauty.com>, <b4eauty.com>, <bdeauty.com>, <be3auty.com>, <be4auty.com>, <beau5ty.com>, <beau6ty.com>, <beau7ty.com>, <beau8ty.com>, <beaugty.com>, <beaujty.com>, <beaut5y.com>, <beaut6y.com>, <beaut7y.com>, <beauyty.com>, <bedauty.com>, <beqauty.com>, <berauty.com>, <bewauty.com>, <bgeauty.com>, <bheauty.com>, <bneauty.com>, <breauty.com>, <bveauty.com>, <bweauty.com> domain names, as they each resolve to Complainant’s website.  Respondent is thus commercially gaining through the receipt of referral fees in violation of the agreement by creating a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship of these disputed domain names.  This evidences Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding the respondent registered and used the <deluxeform.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by redirecting its users to the complainant’s <deluxeforms.com> domain name, thus receiving a commission from the complainant through its affiliate program); see also Cricket Commc’ns, Inc. v. Oliver, FA 954005 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent registered domain names containing the complainant’s mark after enrolling in the complainant’s affiliate program).

 

The Panel has also found that Respondent’s <ebauty.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website, based on Complainant’s attached record.  The Panel finds that the failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Mondich v. Brown, D2000-0004 (WIPO Feb. 16, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to develop its website in a two year period raises the inference of registration in bad faith); see also Disney Enters. Inc. v. Meyers, FA 697818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 26, 2006) (holding that the non-use of a disputed domain name for several years constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, the Panel notes that Respondent’s disputed domain names, each registered no earlier than May 6, 2006, constitute typosquatting.  Respondent therefore has demonstrated further evidence of an engagement in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy 4 ¶ (a)(iii)); see also Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

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 <b3eauty.com>, <b4eauty.com>, <bdeauty.com>, <be3auty.com>, <be4auty.com>, <beau5ty.com>, <beau6ty.com>, <beau7ty.com>, <beau8ty.com>, <beaugty.com>, <beaujty.com>, <beaut5y.com>, <beaut6y.com>, <beaut7y.com>, <beauyty.com>, <bedauty.com>, <beqauty.com>, <berauty.com>, <bewauty.com>, <bgeauty.com>, <bheauty.com>, <bneauty.com>, <breauty.com>, <bveauty.com>, <bweauty.com>, and <ebauty.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated:  September 28, 2009

 

 

 

 

National Arbitration Forum


 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page