national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Team-One Employment Specialists, LLC v. Vanessa Bartley / TeamOneStaffing

Claim Number: FA1110001413165

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Team-One Employment Specialists, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Rod S. Berman of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell. LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is Vanessa Bartley / TeamOneStaffing (“Respondent”), represented by Vanessa D. Bartley, South Carolina, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <teamonestaffing.net> and <teamonestaffing.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 26, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 31, 2011.

 

On October 27, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <teamonestaffing.net> and <teamonestaffing.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  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 November 7, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 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@teamonestaffing.net and postmaster@teamonestaffing.com.  Also on November 7, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 28, 2011.

 

An Additional Submission from Complainant was received and determined to be compliant on December 1, 2011. The Panel has taken this submission into account in reaching its decision.

 

An Additional Submission from Respondent was received and determined to be compliant on December 5, 2011. The Panel has taken this submission into account in reaching its decision.

 

 

On November 7, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

Complainant makes the following contentions: 

 

1.    Respondent’s <teamonestaffing.net> and <teamonestaffing.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TEAM ONE trademark as they contain the trademark and words describing the nature of Complainant’s business. The addition of those words adds to the confusing similarity that arises from using Complainant’s TEAM ONE mark in the domain names.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <teamonestaffing.net> and <teamonestaffing.com>  domain names as (i) Respondent must have known when she registered the domain names that Complainant owned the TEAM ONE trademark; (ii) Complainant has not granted Respondent any license, permission, or authorization by which she could  use the <teamonestaffing.net> and <teamonestaffing.com> domain names or the mark; (iii)  Respondent is not making a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <teamonestaffing.net> and <teamonestaffing.com>  domain names.

 

3.    Respondent registered and used the <teamonestaffing.net> and <teamonestaffing.com> domain names in bad faith on the grounds that (i) the domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s name; (ii) Respondent adopted the domain names for the purpose of diverting internet users seeking Complainant’s services to her own websites and did so by exploiting internet users’ confusion for her own profit.

 

B. Respondent

 

Respondent makes the following contentions:

 

1. The public will not likely be confused or mistaken about the differences between Complainant and Respondent and their respective products and services.

 

2. Respondent did not choose the domain names to trick consumers in order to cash in on Complainant’s business and their respective names are quite different.

 

3. Complainant’s business is a boutique one focusing on local markets and it has no national or international presence. The services of the two companies are not closely related, not marketed in the same way and do not attempt to attract the same customer base.

 

4. Respondent is making a legitimate fair use of the domain names without unfair intent for commercial gain or to mislead or divert customers to tarnish the TEAM ONE mark. Respondent did not know of Complainant at the time of registering the domain names. Respondent did not fail in performing due diligence to ensure that the domain names would not violate existing trademark rights.

 

5. When notified of Complainant’s claim, Respondent offered to change  her domain names if compensation were paid to her by Complainant, but that offer was not accepted.

 

6. There has been no confusion as Respondent has never received an inquiry from a prospective client who was trying to reach Complainant.

 

7. Respondent is making fair use of the domain names as it has never intended to divert customers of Complainant and her business activities are different from those of Complainant.

 

8. Respondent did not purchase the domain names to sell or rent or otherwise transfer them to any other recruiting firm for compensation. Complainant had many years to acquire the domain names but did not do so, choosing instead to use <teamone.la>.

 

C. Additional Submissions

 

Complainant submitted in its additional submission as follows:

 

1 .Complainant owns the federally registered trademark TEAM ONE, which is the subject of U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,741,246, issued on July 29, 2003. Complainant also owns a federal registration for its TEAM ONE Logo Mark, U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 4,030,343, issued September 27, 2011 which are presumed to be inherently distinctive or have acquired secondary meaning.

 

 

2.  The Domain Names are Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s TEAM ONE

Mark.

 

3. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.

 

4. Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith as

at the time she registered the Domain Names, Respondent knew or should

have known of Complainant’s rights in the TEAM ONE mark and

prior to the filing of the Complaint Respondent offered to sell the Domain

Names for well in excess of her costs.

 

Respondent submitted in its additional submission as follows:

 

1.The onus is on Complainant to prove all of the constituent elements of its claim specified in the Policy including registration and use in bad faith, which it has not done.

 

2. The target populations and business interests of Complainant’s and Respondent’s businesses are different.

 

3. Respondent’s intention as 100% service disabled veteran has been to seek work with veterans and others who have served their country and are seeking employment and Respondent doubts if Complainant works in that field. Another difference is the Complainant sees itself as only local, rather than national and does not offer services to the men and women of the armed forces.

 

4. Respondent has not approximated the appearance of Complainant’s website and there are no similarities between the two sites.

 

5. Respondent assumes Complainant has never heard of the expression “One Team One Army One Future.”

 

6. The domain names were not registered or used in bad faith and Complainant has not proved any of the three elements that it mu8st establish.

 

FINDINGS

1.    Although they differ in particulars, both Complainant’s and Respondent’s businesses are generally in the employment agency industry.

 

2.    Complainant owns the trademark TEAM ONE which is the subject of U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,741,246, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and issued on July 29, 2003.

 

3.    Respondent registered the <teamonestaffing.net> domain name on July 5, 2011 and <teamonestaffing.com> on May 10, 2011.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant contends, in its Complaint and Additional Submission, that it has established its rights in the TEAM ONE mark by registering it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,741,246 registered July 29, 2003).  Complainant submits the trademark certificate to verify its contentions.  See Complainant’s Exhibit C.  The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established its rights in the TEAM ONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a) (i) by registering it with the USPTO.  See UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Hassan, FA 947081 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 17, 2007) (finding “no difficulty” in holding that the complainant had established rights in its asserted marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the USPTO); see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Hoffman, FA 874152 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 31, 2007) (finding that the complainant had sufficiently established rights in the SKUNK WORKS mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO).

 

Complainant also contends that Respondent’s <teamonestaffing.net> and <teamonestaffing.com> domain names are confusingly similar to its TEAM ONE mark.  In support of this contention, Complainant argues that the disputed domain names both include the entire mark while removing the space between the terms of the mark and adding the descriptive term “staffing.”  In its Additional Submission, Complainant states that the term “staffing” does little to mitigate the confusion between the disputed domain names and its TEAM ONE mark.  Complainant argues that because it is in the staffing and personnel services industry and known to be so, the addition of that term actually has the effect of increasing the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and its mark.  Complainant also submits that Respondent’s contentions regarding its business name and geographic location are immaterial, because the question of confusing similarity deals with the relation of the disputed domain names to the mark and not the juxtaposition of the parties towards one another.  The Panel notes that both domain names include the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and “.net” respectively. However, Respondent also submits that in fact there is no evidence of actual confusion having taken place between the disputed domain names and the TEAM ONE mark. Even if that is so, the requirement presently under consideration requires a strict comparison between the two expressions without the use of extrinsic evidence, although such evidence is of course useful for consideration under the other elements of the Policy. In the light of all of these considerations and comparing the disputed domain names with the trademark, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TEAM ONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs. FA 937650 (Nat. Arab. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4 (a)(i)); see also Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001) (“CHANEL, the salient feature of the Domain Names, is identical to a mark in which Complainant has shown prior rights.  The addition of the generic term, “perfumes” is not a distinguishing feature, and in this case seems to increase the likelihood of confusion because it is an apt term for Complainant’s business.”). Complainant has thus established the first of the three elements that it must prove.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

It is now generally accepted that for the purposes of this issue Complainant must first make out 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 that 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.”).

 

The Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made out and that it is based on the facts that the domain names contain the whole of Complainant’s trademark, Complainant had used the trademark for some 17 years, thus giving it   prominence, Respondent has added to the trademark the word “staffing” which describes Complainant’s business and Complainant has not given Respondent permission or authority to use its trademark in a domain name or anywhere else.

 

The onus of proof thus moves to Respondent to rebut the prima facie case on the balance of probabilities. The next question is therefore whether Respondent has rebutted that case and shown on the balance of probabilities that she has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names.

 

Respondent relies on several grounds to seek to rebut the prima facie case and those grounds are set out above. Essentially, Respondent says that it registered the domain names legitimately and without any intention to trick consumers or to “cash in on” Complainant and its name, that in any event the two businesses are different, that Respondent did not know of Complainant and that its use of the domain names has been fair. For its part, Complainant denies that that interpretation can be put on the facts and that in reality Respondent has taken Complainant’s trademark and business name and used them to give the impression that her business is that of Complainant and with the intention of confusing internet users, an activity that cannot be legitimate and that there is no other ground on which it can be said that Respondent has the right to use the domain name or has any legitimate interest in it.

 

In cases such as this, where there are rival versions of events and their significance, it is difficult to decide the issue of whether Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. Nevertheless, there are several aspects of the facts that tilt the scales in favour of Complainant and which have persuaded the Panel to the view that Respondent has not rebutted the prima facie case against her. Those matters are as follows:

 

(a)  Respondent’s argument that its business and that of Complainant are essentially different is unpersuasive; clearly, businesses differ one from another but in the present case they are both employment agencies and perform the same basic functions. The importance of that issue is that Respondent has in effect chosen as the essence of her domain names the name of a business in the same field and one that is clearly a well established one that has been operating for 17 years, namely the business of Complainant, together with its trademark. Accordingly, in so far as Respondent is submitting that she has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names because her business is essentially different from that of Complainant, the Panel does not accept that submission.

 

(c) Likewise, it is not true to say, as Respondent submits, that the two businesses operate in regions of the United States that are so distant that they are essentially different businesses. As Complainant correctly points out, Respondent claims on her website to have a wide business network. Moreover, for either business to function at all it must be able to offer services for potential employees no matter where they are. In any event, it must be remembered that the real locale of both businesses is not confined to one or another region of the United States, but the internet and that both businesses are presenting themselves to the entire internet market.

 

(d)  Respondent was under an obligation to make at least some searches to see whether, in choosing the name, she was trespassing on a trademark or business name belonging to someone else and it appears that she did not do so. The USPTO is online and provides an easy way to ascertain if a proposed domain name is the same or similar to a registered trademark. Likewise, the vast range and power of internet search engines would have revealed enough about Complainant’s business and trademarks to warn a prudent business person not to use the same name or a name that could be confused with it. It is not at all clear from the material submitted by Respondent whether she made any enquiries and, if so, what they were. Respondent says that “Respondent did not fail in performing due diligence to ensure that the domain names would not violate existing trademark rights “ but does not say what that due diligence was. As it was easy for Respondent to provide some details of what exactly she did before settling on the domain names and as none of those details are provided, the Panel must conclude that Respondent’s evidence is deficient and militates against her case. In other words, the lack of any such inquiries having been made detracts from the legitimacy of the domain names.  

 

(e)  the other deficiency in Respondent’s evidence is that there is no hint given as to why the names chosen for the domain names were in fact chosen. At one point Respondent’s submission makes a reference to a motto of the Association of the United States Army, namely “One Team One Army One Future”, a motto relevant because Respondent works in the veterans’ field. However, while recognizing this valuable work and the commendable motivations behind it, the Panel does not see the motto as giving rise to the expression “Team One” and Respondent does not say that this is the origin of the name chosen for the domain names. The domain names are virtually the same as the trademark, as they include Complainant’s name and its essential function. Accordingly, the reason why the names were chosen calls for an explanation and none has been provided, which is another substantial deficiency in Respondent’s case and tends to suggest that the domain names were probably chosen because of Complainant’s trademark and business name and repute and their prominence on the internet. At the very least, the lack of an explanation makes it difficult to say on the balance of probabilities that Respondent registered the domain names for a legitimate reason.

 

 

It is also apparent that Respondent is not able to make out a case for a right or legitimate interest in either of the domain names on any of the other grounds provided for in the Policy. First, Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.  Complainant states that the WHOIS information for the <teamonestaffing.net> domain name supports its assertion because it lists the registrant of the domain as “Vanessa Bartley.” Having regard to all of the available evidence and to the fact that Respondent has not submitted that she is commonly known by the domain names and that such a conclusion would be inherently unlikely in view of the recent registration of the domain names, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 

 

Secondly, Complainant also asserts that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <teamonestaffing.net> domain name.  It is clear that the disputed domain name resolves to a site offering competing employment services and the Panel has already held that this was done under the guise of Respondent’s illegitimate use of Complainant’s trademark in the domain name. Accordingly, the  Panel must find that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or fair use of the <teamonestaffing.net> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Florists’ Transworld Delivery v. Malek, FA 676433 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 6, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <ftdflowers4less.com> domain name to sell flowers in competition with the complainant did not give rise to any legitimate interest in the domain name); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”). 

 

Thirdly, Complainant argues that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <teamonestaffing.com> domain name.  The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive site which merely exhibits the phrase “Coming Soon.” As the Panel has already held that the use  by Respondent of Complainant’s trademark in her domain names was not legitimate, the Panel must find that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <teamonestaffing.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for 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 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 also argues that Respondent attempted to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant, further indicating that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  According to Complainant, Respondent made an offer to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant and this is not disputed.  Complainant states that the amount offered, $6,500, was far greater than the out-of-pocket costs associated with the disputed domain names. It is not necessary to make a ruling on this issue in view of the other rulings of the Panel showing that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.

 

For all of these reasons, the Panel finds that Complainant has shown on the balance of probabilities that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in either of the disputed domain names and that Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The third element that must be made out is that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. In this regard, the Panel recognizes the apparent motivation behind the establishment of Respondent’s business, namely to work in the veterans’ field. However, the obligation of the Panel is to decide whether the facts come within the provisions of Policy ¶ 4(a) (iii), which sets out the above element that must be proved.

 

To establish bad faith registration and use of the domain name

 <teamonestaffing.net>, Complainant relies, first, on Policy ¶ 4(b) (iii) and argues that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, namely Complainant.  Complainant submits that the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering employment and staffing services essentially the same as and in direct competition with Complainant’s own services.  Previous panels have determined that offering competing services through a disputed domain name supported a finding of bad faith registration and use.  See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website); see also Jerie v. Burian, FA 795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <sportlivescore.com> domain name in order to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because the respondent was maintaining a website in direct competition with the complainant).

 

As the Panel has already found that the probabilities are that Respondent registered the domain name because of its confusing similarity to Complainant’s name and trademark and taking into account the whole of the evidence, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

 

Complainant also relies on the provisions of Policy ¶ 4(b) (iv) to show bad faith. It  submits that Respondent is attempting to gain commercially from the confusion created between the <teamonestaffing.net> domain name and its own legitimate service offerings and that this brings the matter within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  Complainant states that Internet users may be confused when they arrive at Respondent’s website and it offers similar services to those offered by Complainant.  Internet users may then purchase services from Respondent even though they were searching for Complainant’s services because of this confusion. Having regard to this submission and the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b) (iv) because of its intent to gain commercially from the confusion it created with the disputed domain name.  See Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (“By use of <yahgo.com> to operate its search engine, a name that infringes upon Complainant’s mark, Respondent is found to have created circumstances indicating that Respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or of a product or service on the website as proscribed in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

With respect to the second of the two disputed domain names, <teamonestaffing.com>, Complainant argues that Respondent failure to make an active use of the domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use by itself.  Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a site offering no content other than the statement “Coming Soon.”  Based upon this use, the totality of the evidence and the conclusions already reached by the Panel on the issue of rights and legitimate interests, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a) (iii).  See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); see also Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use).

 

In reaching its conclusions on bad faith with respect to both of the disputed domain names, the Panel has also had regard to the fact that Respondent could have made searches to see if there were any trademarks or business names similar to the proposed domain names, but did not do so and that Respondent has given no or no persuasive reason why the domain names registered were chosen.

 

Accordingly, on the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith and that Complainanrt has made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.

 

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 <teamonestaffing.net> and <teamonestaffing.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC, Panelist

Dated:  December 8, 2011

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page