national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Various, Inc. v. Various, Inc.

Claim Number: FA 1356604

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Various, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joshua Bressler of Bressler Law PLLC, New York, USA.  Respondent is Various, Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Joshua R. Bressler of Bressler Law PLLC, New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <adultfriendfinderfree.com>, registered with NAME.COM LLC.

 

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.

 

Mr. Maninder Singh as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 3, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 4, 2010.

 

On November 9, 2010, NAME.COM LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <adultfriendfinderfree.com> domain name is registered with NAME.COM LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  NAME.COM LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NAME.COM LLC 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 November 16, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 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@adultfriendfinderfree.com.  Also on November 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 23, 2010.

 

On December 1, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mr. Maninder Singh, Ld. Sr. Advocate as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

• Complainant Various, Inc., having its place of business in Sunnyvale, California, claims to own and operate <adultfriendfinder.com> website. A printout of the <adultfriendfinder.com> website home page and the Network Solutions, Inc. (“NSI”) WHOIS registrant information for <adultfriendfinder.com> has been annexed as Exhibit 2. Complainant also claims to own the ADULTFRIENDFINDER service mark registration issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and its wholly-owned subsidiary FriendFinder California Inc. owns the ADULTFRIENDFINDER service mark registration issued by the Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (“OHIM”) in the European Union.
• Complainant claims to have owned and operated the <adultfriendfinder.com> website, since 1996,  as one of the world’s oldest and largest Internet social networking websites, throughout the United States and internationally, serving millions and millions of members and users. Complainant also claims that since its inception, due to its extraordinary, broad and persistent marketing and promotional efforts, the <adultfrinedfinder.com> website has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and that Complainant has entrenched the <adultfrinedfinder.com> website itself as one of the most immensely popular websites of all times. In this regard, Complainant has relied upon Internet traffic monitor Alexa Report dated September 5, 2010, showing a three-month global traffic rank of 160 for the <adultfriendfinder.com> website. A printout of the traffic rank and general information about Alexa which are stated to have been available at www.alexa.com/company/technology has been annexed as Exhibit 5.
• Complainant claims to own the ADULTFRIENDFINDER service mark registrations in Class 38, 41 and 45 its registration no. 2,937,798 dated April 5, 2005 for the territory of USA. Complainant also claims to own the ADULTFRIENDFINDER (stylized) in Class 41 and 45 its registration no. 003693876 dated September 11, 2007 for the territory of European Union (CTM Registration). Complainant, in this regard, has annexed copies of the USPTO database record and the OHIM database record for the respective service mark registrations annexed as Exhibit 6. The complainant has also relied upon the copy of the USPTO Assignments Division database record confirming Complainant’s corporate name change to “Various, Inc.” from “Friend Finder, Inc”.
• Complainant has contended that since its adoption of the domain name in 1996 and well before Registrant’s registration of the Domain Name, it has used its ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark continuously and extensively in interstate and international commerce for advertising and sale of its dating and social networking services and as a result of its long, continuous and extensive use and promotion of its famous ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark, Complainant has built-up and owns valuable goodwill, which is symbolized by the ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark. The complainant claims its domain name to be internationally well known and readily associated exclusively with Complainant as their source.
• The Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered its Domain Name on March 28, 2010, over a decade after Complainant’s adoption and first use of its ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark and its launch of its <adultfriendfinder.com> website. In this regard, the Complainant has relied upon WHOIS records, annexed as Exhibit 3.
• Complainant contends that the Respondent is not conducting any legitimate business activity on the website hosted at the Domain Name and that till November 3, 2010, Respondent was using the Domain Name to host numerous links to third party websites providing and promoting dating and Internet social networking services identical or substantially similar to those services provided by Complainant under its ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark and at its <adultfriendfinder.com> website, among other links. In this regard, Complainant has relied upon the home page of Domain Name’s website (Exhibit 7).
• Complainant further alleges that Respondent is compensated by the sponsors of these links to third party websites, which offer directly competitive services, for permitting those links to be displayed on the Domain Name website and/or for “referring” Internet visitors who “click through” such links to arrive at those third party websites.
• Complainant contends that Respondent’s unauthorized use of the ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark is likely to cause confusion in the minds of members of the relevant trade and public, causing them to believe mistakenly that Complainant has licensed, authorized or sponsored Respondent.
• Complainant has asserted that by virtue of Complainant’s U.S. service mark registration for its ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark, Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s exclusive rights in and to such mark prior to registering and using the Domain Name. (Lanham Act Section 22, 15 U.S.C. Section 1072.) and that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark, given its notoriety established through years of extensive and continuous use, and knowingly registered the Domain Name in bad faith and with the calculated intent to impermissibly capitalize, benefit from and trade on the international reputation and substantial goodwill built up and represented by the ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark, and with the bad faith intent to sell the Domain Name back to Complainant. 
• The Complainant has also asserted in its Complaint that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark. It has been submitted and that a determination that a domain name is confusingly similar under the Policy does not require confusion in a trademark infringement sense; rather, the standard is whether the domain name is similar enough in light of the purpose of the Policy to justify moving on to the other elements of a claim for cancellation or transfer of a domain name. The Complainant has relied upon decision in Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake Party, D2000-1415 (WIPO Jan. 23, 2001). For purposes of the Policy, when a domain name includes a Complainant’s registered mark regardless of the other terms in the domain name, such inclusion is sufficient to establish confusing similarity. The Complainant has placed reliance on Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group, D2000-0413 (WIPO Sept. 18, 2000) (chanelstore.com and chanelfashion.com are confusingly similar to “Chanel” mark); TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (using an established mark and a generic term that is descriptive of the mark holder’s line of business to form a domain name creates consumer confusion).
• Complainant has contended that Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has used the ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark extensively and continuously for many years. Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with any legitimate purpose. It does not engage in the bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii). According to the Complainant, Respondent is using the Domain Name to trade on Complainant’s ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark for commercial purposes, namely the attraction of Internet website traffic using the infringing Domain Name to route that traffic to third party websites who will pay Respondent for having referred it. Reliance has been placed by the Complainant on the following decisions:

 

1. DHL Operations B.V. and DHL International GmbH v. Eric White, D2010-0016 (WIPO March 4, 2010) (the complainants submitted evidence demonstrating that the website associated with the disputed domain name was “parked” by the host GoDaddy and provided several sponsored links to commercial websites of competitors of the complainants, which supported a finding of registrant’s bad faith);
2. The Football Association Premier League Limited v. Trademark, D2005-0014 (WIPO February 9, 2005) (finding no evidence of legitimate interests or fair use in that Respondent’s use of the domain name www.fapremierleague.com included sponsored links and pop-up advertising on the website associated with the domain name in dispute, indicating “a clear intention to use the domain name for a commercial basis with the further intent of making commercial gains.”).

 

• The Complainant has contended that this Arbitration Forum in its following decisions has found bad faith registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name even when the registrant refers its website visitor traffic to the complainant itself:

 

i.         McAfee, Inc. v. Munro Kurz, FA 1289506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2009);

ii.       Stump Printing Company, Inc. v. Nonamy LLC c/o Nonamy Domain Privacy, FA 1287224 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2009); and

iii.      Charming Shoppes, Inc. v. Domains Names, by Proxy, Inc. c/o domainnamesbyproxy.com, FA 1299065 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.28, 2010).

 

• The Complainant has asserted that in the instant case, Respondent is referring traffic away from Complainant, and to third parties offering directly competitive dating and Internet social networking services, making Respondent’s conduct even more egregious and the economic harm substantially worse than in those cases in which panels have found bad faith.

• Complainant has alleged that Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith for the purpose of using Complainant’s exclusive trademark and valuable goodwill without Complainant’s consent to monetize Internet traffic for Respondent’s own commercial gain and that Respondent registered the Domain Name for the bad faith purpose of selling it to Complainant. Complainant has submitted that an individual identifying himself as Shane Hughes, Sales Coordinator, PurchasePremimDomains@gmail.com contacted Complainant on March 29, 2010, i.e. one day after the Domain Name was registered on March 28, 2010 (Exhibit 8). Complainant has asserted that Policy Section 4(b)(i) provides that circumstances indicating that one has registered or acquired a domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of his documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name establish a registrant’s registration and use in bad faith. Complainant has drawn attention to decision in Sotheby's v. IMMAT Ltd., FA 1335246 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 19, 2010); 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).”).
• Complainant has alleged that Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith for the impermissible purposes of using Complainant’s exclusive trademark and valuable goodwill without Complainant’s consent to monetize Internet traffic for Respondent’s own commercial gain, and to coax Complainant to buy the Domain Name now registered to him, extracting from Complainant a price premium.
• Complainant has submitted that Respondent intentionally has concealed his true identity in the WHOIS records for the Domain Name by using a personal identification masking service to hide his real name, address and other contact information. Masking is a common practice of bad faith registrants, who violate others’ rights in this stealth mode to thwart the good faith efforts of those parties aggrieved to remedy the harms suffered at the bad faith registrants’ hands.

 

B. Respondent

 

The Complainant in this case had filed the present complaint on 3.11.2010 against Protected Domain Services - Customer ID: NCR-2443414, inter-alia, praying for transfer of the disputed domain name <adultfriendfinderfree.com>. Pursuant to lodging of the present Complainant, the Registrar of the domain name Name.com LLC acknowledged the Complainant as the registrant of the domain name and in accordance therewith revised the WHOIS data. Accordingly, in these circumstances the Complainant was required by this Arbitration Forum to submit a revised Complaint impleading Complainant as Complainant and Respondent as well. Thereafter the Complainant as the respondent has submitted its response to the amended complaint, inter-alia, contending the following : -

 

·        The respondent in its response contended that shortly after lodging of the present Complaint by the Complainant, Registrar Name.com LLC revised the WHOIS data for the subject domain name to identify Complainant as the registrant. In this view of the matter, in accordance with ICANN rules the National Arbitration Forum required Complainant to amend its Complaint to name itself as Respondent.

·        Respondent further contended that In accordance with decision revising the WHOIS data, Registrant Name.com LLC has conferred control of the subject domain name to the Complainant; and accordingly, now the Complainant has control over the subject disputed domain name.

·        It is submission of the respondent that despite Complainant’s several requests, Registrar Name.com LLC has not disclosed the actual person or entity who had previously registered the subject domain name with the Registrar. It is further the submission of the respondent that on information and belief (namely, the explanation and assurances of the Name.com LLC representative with whom Complainant had corresponded), such person or entity has forfeited its claim upon the subject domain name and abandoned its interest. Respondent in its response has not disputed the allegations / arguments put forth by the Complainant in its Amended Complaint.

·        In view of above the respondent has prayed before this Panel to hold that the Complainant is entitled to retain the domain name from Registrar Name.com LLC.

 

FINDINGS

 

The Panel finds that on the complainant itself having been permitted to also be the respondent, having control over the subject disputed domain name and where there is abandonment of all rights by the original respondent, nothing would survive in the present complaint. However, even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant was entitled for an order for transfer of the disputed domain name in its faovur inasmuch as the Panel finds the registration of the domain name www.adultfriendfinderfree.com by the Respondent  was in bad faith and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the domain name.

 

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."

 

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 Respondent has not disputed the complainant’s allegations in the Complaint and has stated in his response to the complaint of Complainant that the Complainant is entitled to receive the subject domain name from Registrar Name.com LLC and that Complainant is entitled to retain it. The Panel finds that the registrant of the disputed domain name Name.com LLC has not disclosed the name of the person or entity who has registered the subject domain name. This Panel also finds that the original respondent of the domain name has in fact abandoned its interest in the disputed domain name.

 

This Panel has also examined the present complainant on the merits of the complaint as well and is of the view that the Complainant is entitled for the disputed domain name.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

• The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of its mark with the USPTO is sufficient evidence of Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i).  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 Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO).
• The Panel observes that Respondent’s <adultfriendfinderfree.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark.  Complainant’s assertion that Respondent’s disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the generic term “free” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” and that these additions are not sufficient to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark, merits acceptance.  See Google Inc. v. Xtraplus Corp., D2001-0125 (WIPO Apr. 16, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as “buy” or “gear” to the end); 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.”).  Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <adultfriendfinderfree.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADULTFRIENDFINDER mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i).

 

 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

·        The Panel finds that the WHOIS information in the Complaint reveals the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Protected Domain Services - Customer ID NCR-2443414.”  The Panel finds that the failure of the WHOIS information to reflect that Respondent is commonly known by the <adultfriendfinderfree.com> domain name is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to 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 M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).

·        The panel observes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  It is seen that Respondent’s website <adultfriendfinderfree.com> contains links to third-party websites that offer competing dating and social networking services and that Respondent receives revenue from the third-parties to whom Respondent has provided links.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not 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 Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not using the <tesco-finance.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by maintaining a web page with misleading links to the complainant’s competitors in the financial services industry); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (holding that using an identical or confusingly similar domain name to earn click-through fees via sponsored links to a complainant’s competitors does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii)).

·        The Panel has also examined the averments that Respondent contacted Complainant on at least two occasions and offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for the price of $750.  The Panel further observes that the website resolving from the disputed domain name contains a link to <sedo.com>, a third-party website that deals in the selling of domain names and indicates that the <adultfriendfinderfree.com> domain name is for sale.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s offers to sell the disputed domain name further indicate that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy 4(a)(ii).  See 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)); see also Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. Hyun-Jun Shin, FA 154098 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (holding that under the circumstances, the respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose of its rights in the disputed domain name suggested that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

·        The Panel finds that Respondent had registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling it to Complainant and that an individual identifying himself as “Shane Hughes, Sales Coordinator, PurchasePremiumDomains@gmail.com,” contacted Complainant on March 29, 2010, i.e. one day after the disputed domain name was registered and wrote that “Domain Name www.AdultFriendFinderFree.com http://www. adultfriendfinderfree.com> is now for sale.  The panel has observed Complainant’s assertion that this link leads to the third-party <sedo.com> website, a service that sells domain names on behalf of its clients, and purports to offer the disputed domain name for sale for the amount of $500.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s solicitation of Complainant in an attempt to sell the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(b)(i).  See Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding the respondent's offer to sell the domain name at issue to the complainant was evidence of bad faith); see also Wrenchead.com, Inc. v. Hammersla, D2000-1222 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2000) (finding that offering the domain name for sale at an auction site is evidence of bad faith registration and use).

·        The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name to provide Internet users with links to third-party websites that directly compete with Complainant’s dating and social networking services, constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).  See David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tapia, FA 328159 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (“Respondent is referring Internet traffic that seeks out the <aol.tv> domain name to a competitor’s news site.  The Panel strongly finds that appropriating Complainant’s mark to refer customers seeking Complainant to Complainant’s competitors is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).”).

·        This Panel further finds bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iv) where, as here, Respondent’s confusingly similar disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring third-party links from which Respondent presumably receives pay-per-click revenue.  The Panel, therefore, concludes that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name was done to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship of, or affiliation with, the disputed domain name, resolving website, and displayed third-party links.  The Panel also finds that Respondent’s behavior evidences bad faith as outlined in Policy 4(b)(iv).  See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was commercially gaining from the likelihood of confusion between the complainant’s AIM mark and the competing instant messaging products and services advertised on the respondent’s website which resolved from the disputed domain name). 

·        The Panel further finds that Respondent’s revision of the WHOIS information to reflect Complainant’s information amounts to cyberflying and is additional evidence of Respondent’s bad faith under Policy 4(a)(iii).  See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Diners Club Int’l Ltd., FA 551103 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2005) (deciding to proceed with the UDRP analysis but still ordering the transfer of the contested domain names where the respondent had changed the WHOIS information to list the complainant as the registrant of the domain names and the respondent did not contest any of the complainant’s allegations); see also 3M Co. v. 3M Co. c/o Domain Name Admin., FA 1106749 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 14, 2008) (Finding the respondent's attempt to disrupt the UDRP process by listing complainant as the owner of the disputed domain name (cyberflying) was further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(a)(iii).).

 

 

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 <adultfriendfinderfree.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Maninder Singh, Panelist

Dated:  December 13, 2010