Road Runner Sports, Inc. v. Alichec Inc. c/o Brett Alichec a/k/a Oleg Techino a/k/a Oleg Techino a/k/a Balram Brahmin c/o Balram Brahmin a/k/a Belroots Pty Ltd c/o Luis de Carvalho a/k/a Chin-Hui Wu c/o Chin-Hui Wu a/k/a Crystal Image Pty Ltd c/o Antonio Marques a/k/a David Ghou c/o David Ghou a/k/a Denesh Kumar c/o Denesh Kumar a/k/a Denholm Borg c/o Denholm Borg a/k/a Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd c/o Eric Larson a/k/a Domain Administrator a/k/a Lidnick Webcorp Inc c/o Lidnick Webcorp a/k/a Liquid SEO Limited c/o Julian Greenberg a/k/a Loshedina Inc c/o Xi Na a/k/a Luchichang Pty Ltd c/o Luchichang Luchichang a/k/a Marcelos Vainez c/o Marcelos Vainez a/k/a Netmilo c/o Stoyan Bagdanov a/k/a Vlad Obchikov c/o Vlad Obchikov a/k/a Volchar Pty Ltd c/o Domain Administrator a/k/a Web Pescados LLC c/o Augustine Rivera a/k/a Webatopia Marketing Limited c/o Michael Short a/k/a Alex Ovechkin a/k/a WuWeb Pty Ltd c/o Michael Chung Wu a/k/a ZincFusion Limited c/o Vivian Cox
Claim Number: FA1007001337661
Complainant is Road Runner Sports, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Alichec Inc. c/o Brett Alichec a/k/a Oleg Techino a/k/a Oleg Techino a/k/a Balram Brahmin c/o Balram Brahmin a/k/a Belroots Pty Ltd c/o Luis de Carvalho a/k/a Chin-Hui Wu c/o Chin-Hui Wu a/k/a Crystal Image Pty Ltd c/o Antonio Marques a/k/a David Ghou c/o David Ghou a/k/a Denesh Kumar c/o Denesh Kumar a/k/a Denholm Borg c/o Denholm Borg a/k/a Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd c/o Eric Larson a/k/a Domain Administrator a/k/a Lidnick Webcorp Inc c/o Lidnick Webcorp a/k/a Liquid SEO Limited c/o Julian Greenberg a/k/a Loshedina Inc c/o Xi Na a/k/a Luchichang Pty Ltd c/o Luchichang Luchichang a/k/a Marcelos Vainez c/o Marcelos Vainez a/k/a Netmilo c/o Stoyan Bagdanov a/k/a Vlad Obchikov c/o Vlad Obchikov a/k/a Volchar Pty Ltd c/o Domain Administrator a/k/a Web Pescados LLC c/o Augustine Rivera a/k/a Webatopia Marketing Limited c/o Michael Short a/k/a Alex Ovechkin a/k/a WuWeb Pty Ltd c/o Michael Chung Wu a/k/a ZincFusion Limited c/o Vivian Cox (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <roadrunnirsports.com>, <roaddunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspports.com>, <roadrunnersportts.com>, <rouadrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspoorts.com>, <roadrunnnersports.com>, <roadrunnercports.com>, <roadruunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerrsports.com>, <roadrunneersports.com>, <roadrunnersporrts.com>, <roadrunnarsports.com>, <roadrunnersparts.com>, <roadrunndrsports.com>, <roadrunnersportc.com>, <roadrunnersportz.com>, <roadrunnersportx.com>, <roadrrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporte.com>, <roaadrunnersports.com>, <rroadrunnersports.com>, <rooadrunnersports.com>, <roadryunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerwports.com>, <raadrunnersports.com>, <doadrunnersports.com>, <roadrumnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporst.com>, <roadrunmersports.com>, <foadrunnersports.com>, <r0adrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersportw.com>, and <roadfunnersports.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 27, 2010.
On July 30, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <roadrunnirsports.com>, <roaddunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspports.com>, <roadrunnersportts.com>, <rouadrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspoorts.com>, <roadrunnnersports.com>, <roadrunnercports.com>, <roadruunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerrsports.com>, <roadrunneersports.com>, <roadrunnersporrts.com>, <roadrunnarsports.com>, <roadrunnersparts.com>, <roadrunndrsports.com>, <roadrunnersportc.com>, <roadrunnersportz.com>, <roadrunnersportx.com>, <roadrrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporte.com>, <roaadrunnersports.com>, <rroadrunnersports.com>, <rooadrunnersports.com>, <roadryunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerwports.com>, <raadrunnersports.com>, <doadrunnersports.com>, <roadrumnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporst.com>, <roadrunmersports.com>, <foadrunnersports.com>, <r0adrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersportw.com>, and <roadfunnersports.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 5, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 25, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@roadrunnirsports.com, postmaster@roaddunnersports.com, postmaster@roadrunnerspports.com, postmaster@roadrunnersportts.com, postmaster@rouadrunnersports.com, postmaster@roadrunnerspoorts.com, postmaster@roadrunnnersports.com, postmaster@roadrunnercports.com, postmaster@roadruunnersports.com, postmaster@roadrunnerrsports.com, postmaster@roadrunneersports.com, postmaster@roadrunnersporrts.com, postmaster@roadrunnarsports.com, postmaster@roadrunnersparts.com, postmaster@roadrunndrsports.com, postmaster@roadrunnersportc.com, postmaster@roadrunnersportz.com, postmaster@roadrunnersportx.com, postmaster@roadrrunnersports.com, postmaster@roadrunnersporte.com, postmaster@roaadrunnersports.com, postmaster@rroadrunnersports.com, postmaster@rooadrunnersports.com, postmaster@roadryunnersports.com, postmaster@roadrunnerwports.com, postmaster@raadrunnersports.com, postmaster@doadrunnersports.com, postmaster@roadrumnersports.com, postmaster@roadrunnersporst.com, postmaster@roadrunmersports.com, postmaster@foadrunnersports.com, postmaster@r0adrunnersports.com, postmaster@roadrunnersportw.com, and postmaster@roadfunnersports.com by e-mail. Also on August 5, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 3, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <roadrunnirsports.com>, <roaddunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspports.com>, <roadrunnersportts.com>, <rouadrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspoorts.com>, <roadrunnnersports.com>, <roadrunnercports.com>, <roadruunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerrsports.com>, <roadrunneersports.com>, <roadrunnersporrts.com>, <roadrunnarsports.com>, <roadrunnersparts.com>, <roadrunndrsports.com>, <roadrunnersportc.com>, <roadrunnersportz.com>, <roadrunnersportx.com>, <roadrrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporte.com>, <roaadrunnersports.com>, <rroadrunnersports.com>, <rooadrunnersports.com>, <roadryunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerwports.com>, <raadrunnersports.com>, <doadrunnersports.com>, <roadrumnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporst.com>, <roadrunmersports.com>, <foadrunnersports.com>, <r0adrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersportw.com>, and <roadfunnersports.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROAD RUNNER SPORTS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <roadrunnirsports.com>, <roaddunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspports.com>, <roadrunnersportts.com>, <rouadrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspoorts.com>, <roadrunnnersports.com>, <roadrunnercports.com>, <roadruunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerrsports.com>, <roadrunneersports.com>, <roadrunnersporrts.com>, <roadrunnarsports.com>, <roadrunnersparts.com>, <roadrunndrsports.com>, <roadrunnersportc.com>, <roadrunnersportz.com>, <roadrunnersportx.com>, <roadrrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporte.com>, <roaadrunnersports.com>, <rroadrunnersports.com>, <rooadrunnersports.com>, <roadryunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerwports.com>, <raadrunnersports.com>, <doadrunnersports.com>, <roadrumnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporst.com>, <roadrunmersports.com>, <foadrunnersports.com>, <r0adrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersportw.com>, and <roadfunnersports.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <roadrunnirsports.com>, <roaddunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspports.com>, <roadrunnersportts.com>, <rouadrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspoorts.com>, <roadrunnnersports.com>, <roadrunnercports.com>, <roadruunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerrsports.com>, <roadrunneersports.com>, <roadrunnersporrts.com>, <roadrunnarsports.com>, <roadrunnersparts.com>, <roadrunndrsports.com>, <roadrunnersportc.com>, <roadrunnersportz.com>, <roadrunnersportx.com>, <roadrrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporte.com>, <roaadrunnersports.com>, <rroadrunnersports.com>, <rooadrunnersports.com>, <roadryunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerwports.com>, <raadrunnersports.com>, <doadrunnersports.com>, <roadrumnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporst.com>, <roadrunmersports.com>, <foadrunnersports.com>, <r0adrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersportw.com>, and <roadfunnersports.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Road Runner Sports, Inc., designs, markets, and sells athletic products. Complainant began operation in 1983 and offers its products under its ROAD RUNNER SPORTS mark. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its ROAD RUNNER SPORTS mark (Reg. No. 1,789,491 issued August 24, 1993).
Respondent registered the disputed domain names no earlier than November 15, 2004. All of the disputed domain names resolve back to Complainant’s main website through Complainant’s affiliate program.
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.
Preliminary Issue:
Multiple Respondents
Complainant contends that all of the disputed domain names were registered with the same registrar, GoDaddy.com. Complainant asserts that Respondent registered twenty-seven of the domain names on November 15, 2004 and seven of the domain names on December 8, 2008. Complainant argues that all of the disputed domain names resolve to Complainant’s website through Complainant’s affiliate program. According to Complainant, with the exception of the <roaadrunnersports.com> domain name, all of the domain names forward Internet traffic through the same affiliate network account ID, GAN publisher id=3D21000000000042084. Complainant states that all of the disputed domain names share the same affiliate name, Discount Search. There is no evidence in the record to the contrary.
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity and that Respondent is operating under multiple aliases.
The Panel finds Complainant has established rights under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in the ROAD RUNNER SPORTS mark through its registration of the
mark with the USPTO. See Microsoft
Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark
through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Metro.
Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration
adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶
4(a)(i)); see also Koninklijke
KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the
Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the
respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can
demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROAD RUNNER SPORTS mark. The disputed domain names all contain common misspellings of Complainant’s mark after removing the spaces in the mark coupled with the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds the use of common misspellings of Complainant’s mark by adding letters, replacing letters with other letters, and adding numbers does not distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); see also Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source, D2000-0362 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the domain name <0xygen.com>, with zero in place of letter “O,” “appears calculated to trade on Complainant’s name by exploiting likely mistake by users when entering the url address”). The Panel further determines that the removal of spaces and the addition of a gTLD are irrelevant in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Elimination of punctuation and the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, as well as the addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also 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.”). Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROAD RUNNER SPORTS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts
to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel
finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima
facie case. Due to Respondent’s
failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does
not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. However, the Panel will examine the record to
determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do
the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)
(“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s
allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions
in this regard.”); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's
failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also
will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name.”).
The Panel finds no evidence in the record, suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant states that Respondent is not sponsored or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way, and is not authorized to use the ROAD RUNNER SPORTS mark. The WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users back to Complainant’s website for Respondent’s unauthorized commercial gain through Complainant’s affiliate program. The Panel determines that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ROAD RUNNER SPORTS mark to redirect Internet users for this purpose is not bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair uses of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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 affiliates program is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a noncommercial use of the domain name); see also 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, a misspelling of the complainant’s mark, the respondent intended to profit off the domain name 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)).
In addition, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names constitutes typosquatting. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of domain names that are common misspellings of Complainant’s ROAD RUNNER SPORTS mark to redirect Internet users seeking Complainant’s website fails to establish rights or interests pursuant to 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.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users back to Complainant’s website for Respondent’s unauthorized commercial gain through Complainant’s affiliate program. Respondent is commercially benefiting from Internet users that mistakenly discover the disputed domain names when attempting to reach Complainant’s official website. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” which is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also 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).
Respondent has engaged in typosquatting through its use of the disputed domain names, which are common misspellings of Complainant’s ROAD RUNNER SPORTS mark. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp., FA 328127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2004) (“By engaging in typosquatting, [r]espondent has registered and used the <vangard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”).
The Panel finds that Policy 4(a)(iii) has been 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 <roadrunnirsports.com>, <roaddunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspports.com>, <roadrunnersportts.com>, <rouadrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerspoorts.com>, <roadrunnnersports.com>, <roadrunnercports.com>, <roadruunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerrsports.com>, <roadrunneersports.com>, <roadrunnersporrts.com>, <roadrunnarsports.com>, <roadrunnersparts.com>, <roadrunndrsports.com>, <roadrunnersportc.com>, <roadrunnersportz.com>, <roadrunnersportx.com>, <roadrrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporte.com>, <roaadrunnersports.com>, <rroadrunnersports.com>, <rooadrunnersports.com>, <roadryunnersports.com>, <roadrunnerwports.com>, <raadrunnersports.com>, <doadrunnersports.com>, <roadrumnersports.com>, <roadrunnersporst.com>, <roadrunmersports.com>, <foadrunnersports.com>, <r0adrunnersports.com>, <roadrunnersportw.com>, and <roadfunnersports.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 10, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum