Foster and Smith, Inc. v. Vintage Hosting Services
Claim Number: FA1009001345186
Complainant is Foster and Smith, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kourtney A. Mulcahy of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Vintage Hosting Services ("Respondent"), represented by Constantine Xinos of Xinos & Xinos Ltd., Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain names at issue are <doctorfostersmitth.com>, <doctorfostersmitg.com>, <doctorfostersmit.com>, <doctorfostersmirh.com>, <doctorfostersmiith.com>, <doctorfostersmih.com>, <doctorfostersith.com>, <doctorfosterrsmith.com>, <doctorfosterrandsmith.com>, <doctorfosterndsmith.com>, <doctorfostermith.com>, <doctorfosterdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranssmith.com>, <doctorfosteransmith.com>, <doctorfosteransdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranndsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranfsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandssmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsnith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmuth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmoth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiyh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitj.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitg.com>, <doctorfosterandsmit.com>, <doctorfosteramdsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmirh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmih.com>, <doctorfosterandsith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteranddsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranddmith.com>, <doctorfosterandamith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteraandsmith.com>, <doctorfosteradsmith.com>, and <doctorfosterabdsmith.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 3, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 7, 2010.
On September 8, 2010, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <doctorfostersmitth.com>, <doctorfostersmitg.com>, <doctorfostersmit.com>, <doctorfostersmirh.com>, <doctorfostersmiith.com>, <doctorfostersmih.com>, <doctorfostersith.com>, <doctorfosterrsmith.com>, <doctorfosterrandsmith.com>, <doctorfosterndsmith.com>, <doctorfostermith.com>, <doctorfosterdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranssmith.com>, <doctorfosteransmith.com>, <doctorfosteransdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranndsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranfsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandssmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsnith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmuth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmoth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiyh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitj.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitg.com>, <doctorfosterandsmit.com>, <doctorfosteramdsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmirh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmih.com>, <doctorfosterandsith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteranddsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranddmith.com>, <doctorfosterandamith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteraandsmith.com>, <doctorfosteradsmith.com>, and <doctorfosterabdsmith.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 disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On September 16, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 6, 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@doctorfostersmitth.com, postmaster@doctorfostersmitg.com, postmaster@doctorfostersmit.com, postmaster@doctorfostersmirh.com, postmaster@doctorfostersmiith.com, postmaster@doctorfostersmih.com, postmaster@doctorfostersith.com, postmaster@doctorfosterrsmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosterrandsmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosterndsmith.com, postmaster@doctorfostermith.com, postmaster@doctorfosterdmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosteranssmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosteransmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosteransdmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosteranndsmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosteranfsmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandssmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsnith.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmuth.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmth.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmoth.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmiyh.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmitth.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmitj.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmitg.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmit.com, postmaster@doctorfosteramdsmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmirh.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmiith.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsmih.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandsith.com, postmaster@doctorfosteramith.com, postmaster@doctorfosteranddsmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosteranddmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosterandamith.com, postmaster@doctorfosteramith.com, postmaster@doctorfosteraandsmith.com, postmaster@doctorfosteradsmith.com, and postmaster@doctorfosterabdsmith.com. Also on September 16, 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 October 20, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <doctorfostersmitth.com>, <doctorfostersmitg.com>, <doctorfostersmit.com>, <doctorfostersmirh.com>, <doctorfostersmiith.com>, <doctorfostersmih.com>, <doctorfostersith.com>, <doctorfosterrsmith.com>, <doctorfosterrandsmith.com>, <doctorfosterndsmith.com>, <doctorfostermith.com>, <doctorfosterdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranssmith.com>, <doctorfosteransmith.com>, <doctorfosteransdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranndsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranfsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandssmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsnith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmuth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmoth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiyh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitj.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitg.com>, <doctorfosterandsmit.com>, <doctorfosteramdsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmirh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmih.com>, <doctorfosterandsith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteranddsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranddmith.com>, <doctorfosterandamith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteraandsmith.com>, <doctorfosteradsmith.com>, and <doctorfosterabdsmith.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOCTORS FOSTER AND SMITH mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <doctorfostersmitth.com>, <doctorfostersmitg.com>, <doctorfostersmit.com>, <doctorfostersmirh.com>, <doctorfostersmiith.com>, <doctorfostersmih.com>, <doctorfostersith.com>, <doctorfosterrsmith.com>, <doctorfosterrandsmith.com>, <doctorfosterndsmith.com>, <doctorfostermith.com>, <doctorfosterdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranssmith.com>, <doctorfosteransmith.com>, <doctorfosteransdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranndsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranfsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandssmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsnith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmuth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmoth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiyh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitj.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitg.com>, <doctorfosterandsmit.com>, <doctorfosteramdsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmirh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmih.com>, <doctorfosterandsith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteranddsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranddmith.com>, <doctorfosterandamith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteraandsmith.com>, <doctorfosteradsmith.com>, and <doctorfosterabdsmith.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <doctorfostersmitth.com>, <doctorfostersmitg.com>, <doctorfostersmit.com>, <doctorfostersmirh.com>, <doctorfostersmiith.com>, <doctorfostersmih.com>, <doctorfostersith.com>, <doctorfosterrsmith.com>, <doctorfosterrandsmith.com>, <doctorfosterndsmith.com>, <doctorfostermith.com>, <doctorfosterdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranssmith.com>, <doctorfosteransmith.com>, <doctorfosteransdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranndsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranfsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandssmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsnith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmuth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmoth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiyh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitj.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitg.com>, <doctorfosterandsmit.com>, <doctorfosteramdsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmirh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmih.com>, <doctorfosterandsith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteranddsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranddmith.com>, <doctorfosterandamith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteraandsmith.com>, <doctorfosteradsmith.com>, and <doctorfosterabdsmith.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Foster and Smith, Inc., owns and operates retail pet supply and medical businesses both online and through mail order catalogs. Complainant owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for various versions of its mark including, DOCTORS FOSTER AND SMITH (e.g., Reg. No. 3,283,887 issued August 21, 2007).
Respondent, Vintage Hosting Services, registered the disputed domain names on October 31, 2009. Respondent’s disputed domain names redirect Internet users to <petsmart.com>, a direct competitor of Complainant.
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 that Complainant has established rights in its DOCTORS FOSTER AND SMITH mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations of such with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,283,887 issued August 21, 2007). See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also 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.”).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOCTORS FOSTER AND SMITH marks. Complainant notes that each domain name removes the letter “s” from the DOCTORS portion of the mark, each domain name contains the term FOSTER completely, each domain name removes the spaces separating the terms of the mark, some of the domain names leave out the connector, AND, while others simply misspell the term, and all of the domain names contain a misspelled version of SMITH from the mark. Further, all of the domain names contain the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Complainant argues that even while misspelling its mark Respondent has not removed the domain names from the realm of being confusingly similar because the root of the domain names remains Complainant’s mark in one form or another. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s disputed domain names were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because the disputed domain names were common misspellings of the mark involving keys that were adjacent to the current keys comprising the complainant’s mark); see also 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); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (holding that “the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ‘TESCO PERSONAL FINANCE’ mark in that it merely omits the descriptive term ‘personal.’”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”). The Panel finds that Complainant has produced a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Nevertheless, the Panel will evaluate the evidence on record in determining whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. The WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names, and Respondent has not come forward with any evidence indicating such. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also 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).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to <petsmart.com> where Respondent was a member of the affiliate program. Complainant argues that Respondent is profiting from such diversion and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to a direct competitor of Complainant is 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 Fox News Network, LLC v. Reid, D2002-1085 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to generate revenue via advertisement and affiliate fees is not a bona fide offering of good or services); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Power of Choice Holding Co., FA 621292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of domain names confusingly similar to the complainant’s WAL-MART mark to divert Internet users seeking the complainant’s goods and services to websites competing with the complainant did not constitute 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)).
Further, Complainant provides evidence to show that Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant for $5,400. The Panel finds that such an offer and apparent willingness to relinquish rights in the domain names is further evidence that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that a respondent’s willingness to sell a domain name to the complainant suggests that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in that domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that after receiving a letter from Complainant, Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain names for $5,400. Complainant contends that such an offer to sell the domain names for more than the cost of obtaining them is evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s offer to sell the domain names to Complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. AchievementTec, Inc., FA 192316 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name for $2,000 sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)).
Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to direct Internet traffic to Complainant’s direct competitor at <petsmart.com>. The Panel finds that such use interferes with Complainant’s online business activities and causes a disruption to Complainant’s business. Further, the Panel finds that such use is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is a member of the <petsmart.com> affiliate program and receives affiliate fees by diverting Internet users who are seeking Complainant’s goods to Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a direct competitor of Complainant through an affiliate program is evidence bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of the complainant); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“the Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”).
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 <doctorfostersmitth.com>, <doctorfostersmitg.com>, <doctorfostersmit.com>, <doctorfostersmirh.com>, <doctorfostersmiith.com>, <doctorfostersmih.com>, <doctorfostersith.com>, <doctorfosterrsmith.com>, <doctorfosterrandsmith.com>, <doctorfosterndsmith.com>, <doctorfostermith.com>, <doctorfosterdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranssmith.com>, <doctorfosteransmith.com>, <doctorfosteransdmith.com>, <doctorfosteranndsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranfsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandssmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsnith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmuth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmoth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiyh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitth.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitj.com>, <doctorfosterandsmitg.com>, <doctorfosterandsmit.com>, <doctorfosteramdsmith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmirh.com>, <doctorfosterandsmiith.com>, <doctorfosterandsmih.com>, <doctorfosterandsith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteranddsmith.com>, <doctorfosteranddmith.com>, <doctorfosterandamith.com>, <doctorfosteramith.com>, <doctorfosteraandsmith.com>, <doctorfosteradsmith.com>, and <doctorfosterabdsmith.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: October 20, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page