Time Warner Inc. v. richard ibarzabal
Claim Number: FA1102001375065
Complainant is Time Warner Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brian J. Winterfeldt of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is richard ibarzabal (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <3dtimewarner.com>, <3dtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtimewarnercablesports.com>, <3dtimewarnertv.com>, <3dtvtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtwcmovies.com>, <3dtwcsports.com>, <timewarner3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dpayperview.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dhd.info>, <timewarnercable3dsports.com>, <timewarnercable3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideoondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideosondemand.com>, <timewarnercablemovie.com>, <timewarnercablemovies.com>, <timewarnercablesports3d.com>, <timewarnercabletv3d.com>, <timewarnertv3d.com>, <twc3dglasses.com>, <twc3dmovies.com>, <twc3dtv.com>, <twcable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhd.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.info>, <timewarner3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercablecoupons.com>, and <tv3dtimewarner.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 February 25, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 25, 2011.
On February 28, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <3dtimewarner.com>, <3dtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtimewarnercablesports.com>, <3dtimewarnertv.com>, <3dtvtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtwcmovies.com>, <3dtwcsports.com>, <timewarner3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dpayperview.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dhd.info>, <timewarnercable3dsports.com>, <timewarnercable3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideoondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideosondemand.com>, <timewarnercablemovie.com>, <timewarnercablemovies.com>, <timewarnercablesports3d.com>, <timewarnercabletv3d.com>, <timewarnertv3d.com>, <twc3dglasses.com>, <twc3dmovies.com>, <twc3dtv.com>, <twcable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhd.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.info>, <timewarner3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercablecoupons.com>, and <tv3dtimewarner.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 March 7, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 28, 2011 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@3dtimewarner.com, postmaster@3dtimewarnercable.com, postmaster@3dtimewarnercablesports.com, postmaster@3dtimewarnertv.com, postmaster@3dtvtimewarnercable.com, postmaster@3dtwcmovies.com, postmaster@3dtwcsports.com, postmaster@timewarner3dtv.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3d.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dmovie.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dmovieondemand.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dmovies.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dmoviesondemand.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dpayperview.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.info, postmaster@timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dhdmovies.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dhdmovie.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dhd.info, postmaster@timewarnercable3dsports.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dtv.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dvideoondemand.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dvideosondemand.com, postmaster@timewarnercablemovie.com, postmaster@timewarnercablemovies.com, postmaster@timewarnercablesports3d.com, postmaster@timewarnercabletv3d.com, postmaster@timewarnertv3d.com, postmaster@twc3dglasses.com, postmaster@twc3dmovies.com, postmaster@twc3dtv.com, postmaster@twcable3d.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.info, postmaster@timewarnercable3dhd.com, postmaster@timewarner3dmovies.com, postmaster@timewarner3dmovies.info, postmaster@timewarner3dhdtv.com, postmaster@timewarnercable3dhdtv.com, postmaster@timewarnercablecoupons.com, and postmaster@tv3dtimewarner.com. Also on March 7, 2011, 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 March 16, 2011.
On March 22, 2011, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <3dtimewarner.com>, <3dtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtimewarnercablesports.com>, <3dtimewarnertv.com>, <3dtvtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtwcmovies.com>, <3dtwcsports.com>, <timewarner3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dpayperview.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dhd.info>, <timewarnercable3dsports.com>, <timewarnercable3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideoondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideosondemand.com>, <timewarnercablemovie.com>, <timewarnercablemovies.com>, <timewarnercablesports3d.com>, <timewarnercabletv3d.com>, <timewarnertv3d.com>, <twc3dglasses.com>, <twc3dmovies.com>, <twc3dtv.com>, <twcable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhd.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.info>, <timewarner3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercablecoupons.com>, and <tv3dtimewarner.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIME WARNER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <3dtimewarner.com>, <3dtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtimewarnercablesports.com>, <3dtimewarnertv.com>, <3dtvtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtwcmovies.com>, <3dtwcsports.com>, <timewarner3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dpayperview.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dhd.info>, <timewarnercable3dsports.com>, <timewarnercable3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideoondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideosondemand.com>, <timewarnercablemovie.com>, <timewarnercablemovies.com>, <timewarnercablesports3d.com>, <timewarnercabletv3d.com>, <timewarnertv3d.com>, <twc3dglasses.com>, <twc3dmovies.com>, <twc3dtv.com>, <twcable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhd.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.info>, <timewarner3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercablecoupons.com>, and <tv3dtimewarner.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <3dtimewarner.com>, <3dtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtimewarnercablesports.com>, <3dtimewarnertv.com>, <3dtvtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtwcmovies.com>, <3dtwcsports.com>, <timewarner3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dpayperview.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dhd.info>, <timewarnercable3dsports.com>, <timewarnercable3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideoondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideosondemand.com>, <timewarnercablemovie.com>, <timewarnercablemovies.com>, <timewarnercablesports3d.com>, <timewarnercabletv3d.com>, <timewarnertv3d.com>, <twc3dglasses.com>, <twc3dmovies.com>, <twc3dtv.com>, <twcable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhd.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.info>, <timewarner3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercablecoupons.com>, and <tv3dtimewarner.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent makes the following assertions:
a. Other domain names referring to Time Warner are worse than Respondent’s domain names.
b. Respondent bought the domain names that pertain to 3d before Complainant offered 3d.
c. Respondent did not register the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Complainant Time Warner, Inc. has been using the marks TIME WARNER and TIME WARNER CABLE since 1994, most notably for television broadcasting services. Complainant owns the following trademark registrations, among others containing the mark TIME WARNER:
Mark Reg. No. Date Issued
TIME WARNER 1,816,474 January 11, 1994;
TIME WARNER 1,940,977 December 12, 1995;
TIME WARNER CABLE 2,775,146 October 21, 2003; and
TIME WARNER CABLE 3,352,095 December 11, 2007.
Complainant also conducts business under the domain name <timewarner.com>.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on July 10, 2010, and none of them resolve to an active website.
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 Panel finds that Complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO adequately demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the TIME WARNER and TIME WARNER CABLE marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Machuszek, FA 945052 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 7, 2007) (finding that “Complainant has established rights in the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark through [multiple] registrations [with the USPTO] under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark. Respondent’s disputed domain names all make one or more of the following changes to Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark: deleting the term “cable”; abbreviating “TIME WARNER CABLE” as “twc” or “twcable”; deleting the space between the terms; adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” or “.info”; and adding one or more of the following descriptive or generic terms, abbreviations, or phrases—“3d,” “sports,” “tv,” “movies,” “movie,” “on demand,” “payperview,” “hd,” “video,” “videos,” “glasses,” and “coupons.” The Panel finds that deleting a term from Complainant’s mark does not alleviate confusing similarity. See 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 Wellness Int’l Network, LTD v. Apostolics.com, FA 96189 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2001) (finding that the domain name <wellness-international.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL NETWORK). The Panel also finds that abbreviating Complainant’s mark does not distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Microsoft Corp. v. Montrose Corp., D2000-1568 (WIPO Jan. 25, 2001) (finding the domain name <ms-office-2000.com> to be confusingly similar even though the mark MICROSOFT is abbreviated); see also Minn. State Lottery v. Mendes, FA 96701 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 2, 2001) (finding that the <mnlottery.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s MINNESOTA STATE LOTTERY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The Panel concludes that adding generic or descriptive terms, phrases, or abbreviations does not change the essential character of Complainant’s mark or prevent confusing similarity. See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Plum Promotions, FA 96503 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (“The mere addition of the generic term “tv” does not reduce the likelihood of confusion under Policy 4(a)(i).”). The Panel determines that deleting spaces between the terms and adding a gTLD do not distinguish the disputed domain names. See 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.”). The Panel finds, therefore, that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. 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 UDRP ¶ 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 AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant asserts that neither Respondent’s name, “Richard Ibarzabal,” nor the name of the company of which he claims to be CEO, “Kicky Kicks,” bears any similarity to the TIME WARNER CABLE mark or the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names, identifying the registrant as “Richard Ibarzabal,” does not reflect any association between Respondent and the disputed domain names. The Panel accordingly finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and thus lacks rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <shoredurometer.com> and <shoredurometers.com> domain names because the WHOIS information listed Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't as the registrant of the disputed domain names and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute); see also Educ. Broad. Corp. v. DomainWorks Inc., FA 882172 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <thirteen.com> domain name based on all evidence in the record, and the respondent did not counter this argument in its response).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not currently using any of the disputed domain names to provide substantive content. Complainant states that all of the disputed domain names resolve to a blank web page and do not contain any HTML source code. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to actively use the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that the respondent made preparations to use the domain name or one like it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also 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).”).
Complainant states that Respondent discussed selling the disputed domain names to Complainant several times. Complainant also states that Respondent suggested the alternative of allowing Complainant to use the disputed domain names until January 1, 2011, because he is “a business man.” When Complainant contacted Respondent, Complainant alleges that Respondent said that he owned approximately 90 domain names and that he had already received offers to buy his domain name portfolio. Complainant argues that Respondent continued by saying that he would sell his portfolio to Complainant for double his best offer, and that Respondent later said he was entertaining the idea of selling the domain names for $5 million. The Panel finds that Respondent made continuous efforts to sell the infringing disputed domain names, which reveal a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one holds a domain name primarily for the purpose of marketing it to the owner of a corresponding trademark); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling its rights).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent communicated with Complainant multiple times regarding the sale of the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with the purpose of selling them to Complainant for a price in excess of his out-of-pocket costs, an indication of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names pursuant to 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 Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Meeting Point Co., D2000-1245 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent made no use of the domain names except to offer them to sale to the complainant).
Respondent has not used any of the disputed domain names in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to actively use the disputed domain names is further evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda. v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (“Mere [failure to make an active use] of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner’s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale.”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <3dtimewarner.com>, <3dtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtimewarnercablesports.com>, <3dtimewarnertv.com>, <3dtvtimewarnercable.com>, <3dtwcmovies.com>, <3dtwcsports.com>, <timewarner3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dpayperview.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhdmoviesondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovies.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovie.com>, <timewarnercable3dhd.info>, <timewarnercable3dsports.com>, <timewarnercable3dtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideoondemand.com>, <timewarnercable3dvideosondemand.com>, <timewarnercablemovie.com>, <timewarnercablemovies.com>, <timewarnercablesports3d.com>, <timewarnercabletv3d.com>, <timewarnertv3d.com>, <twc3dglasses.com>, <twc3dmovies.com>, <twc3dtv.com>, <twcable3d.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdmovieondemand.info>, <timewarnercable3dhd.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.com>, <timewarner3dmovies.info>, <timewarner3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercable3dhdtv.com>, <timewarnercablecoupons.com>, and <tv3dtimewarner.com> domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 5, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page