national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Time Warner Inc. v. Cell Repair By S & P

Claim Number: FA1112001421138

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Time Warner Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis of Arent Fox LLP, Washington, D.C., USA.  Respondent is Cell Repair By S & P (“Respondent”), represented by Justin R. Key of Jones Ward PLC, Kentucky, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <timewarnerappdownload.com>, <timewarnerbowlinggreen.com>, <timewarnercablebowlinggreen.com>, <timewarnercablecovington.com>, <timewarnercablecrestwood.com>, <timewarnercableevansville.com>, <timewarnercablefortknox.com>, <timewarnercableillinois.com>, <timewarnercableindiana.com>, <timewarnercableipadapp.com>, <timewarnercablejasper.com>, <timewarnercablekentucky.com>, <timewarnercablelexington.com>, <timewarnercablelouisville.com>, <timewarnercablenewport.com>, <timewarnercampbellsburg.com>, <timewarnercovington.com>, <timewarnercrestwood.com>, <timewarnerevansville.com>, <timewarnerfortknox.com>, <timewarnerillinois.com>, <timewarnerindiana.com>, <timewarneripadapp.com>, <timewarnerjasper.com>,

 

-1-

 

<timewarnerkentucky.com>, <timewarnerlexington.com>,

<timewarnerlouisville.com>, and <timewarnernewport.com>, registered with Godaddy.Com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Carol Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 22, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 22, 2011.

 

On December 23, 2011, Godaddy.Com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <timewarnerappdownload.com>, <timewarnerbowlinggreen.com>, <timewarnercablebowlinggreen.com>, <timewarnercablecovington.com>, <timewarnercablecrestwood.com>, <timewarnercableevansville.com>, <timewarnercablefortknox.com>, <timewarnercableillinois.com>, <timewarnercableindiana.com>, <timewarnercableipadapp.com>, <timewarnercablejasper.com>, <timewarnercablekentucky.com>, <timewarnercablelexington.com>, <timewarnercablelouisville.com>, <timewarnercablenewport.com>, <timewarnercampbellsburg.com>, <timewarnercovington.com>, <timewarnercrestwood.com>, <timewarnerevansville.com>, <timewarnerfortknox.com>, <timewarnerillinois.com>, <timewarnerindiana.com>,

-2-

<timewarneripadapp.com>, <timewarnerjasper.com>, <timewarnerkentucky.com>, <timewarnerlexington.com>, <timewarnerlouisville.com>, and <timewarnernewport.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Godaddy.Com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.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 December 30, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 19, 2012 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@timewarnerappdownload.com, postmaster@timewarnerbowlinggreen.com, postmaster@timewarnercablebowlinggreen.com, postmaster@timewarnercablecovington.com, postmaster@timewarnercablecrestwood.com, postmaster@timewarnercableevansville.com, postmaster@timewarnercablefortknox.com, postmaster@timewarnercableillinois.com, postmaster@timewarnercableindiana.com, postmaster@timewarnercableipadapp.com, postmaster@timewarnercablejasper.com, postmaster@timewarnercablekentucky.com, postmaster@timewarnercablelexington.com,

 

-3-

postmaster@timewarnercablelouisville.com, postmaster@timewarnercablenewport.com, postmaster@timewarnercampbellsburg.com, postmaster@timewarnercovington.com, postmaster@timewarnercrestwood.com, postmaster@timewarnerevansville.com, postmaster@timewarnerfortknox.com, postmaster@timewarnerillinois.com, postmaster@timewarnerindiana.com, postmaster@timewarneripadapp.com, postmaster@timewarnerjasper.com, postmaster@timewarnerkentucky.com, postmaster@timewarnerlexington.com, postmaster@timewarnerlouisville.com, and postmaster@timewarnernewport.com.

 

 Also on December 30, 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 January 20, 2012.

 

On January 25, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Carol Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

-4-

 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

Complainant Time Warner Inc. (“Time Warner”)  owns all rights, title and interest in and to a family of marks that incorporate, in whole or in part, TIME WARNER and TIME WARNER CABLE (the “TIME WARNER Marks”), including, but not limited to, the following United States federal trademark registrations:

 

TIME WARNER (U.S. Trademark Reg. No 1816474, issued on January 11, 1994, for cable television broadcasting services); TIME WARNER (U.S. TRADEMARK Reg. No. 1940977, issued on December 12, 1995, for prerecorded audio cassette tapes featuring the arts, literature, lifestyles, fitness, music, and topics of general interest); TIME WARNER CABLE (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3972845, issued on June 7, 2011, for a variety of advertising and business services); TIME WARNER CABLE and Design (U.S. Trademark  Reg. No. 2775146, issued on October 21, 2003, for cable television broadcasting services; and broadcast and telecommunications services provided via a cable platform.

 

Time Warner owns and uses “TIMEWARNER.COM” in connection with providing a wide variety of services on the Internet, per Annexes C & D.

 

In addition, Time Warner licenses Time Warner Cable Inc. to use the name and trademark TIME WARNER CABLE and TIMEWARNERCABLE.COM to provide cable, telecommunications and related services.

 

 

-5-

Long before Respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain names at issue in this Complaint (the “Disputed Domains”), Time Warner adopted and began using the TIME WARNER Marks in connection with a wide variety of goods and services.

 

The Time Warner Marks are used extensively throughout Time Warner’s web sites, which are a significant method of promoting Time Warner and its services. 

 

As a result, consumers associate TIME WARNER, when used in a domain name, trademark and on the Internet, with Time Warner’s products and services.

Time Warner is a leading media and entertainment company and Fortune 100 company whose services are utilized by millions of subscribers and users throughout the world.  TIME WARNER has publicized its marks through millions of dollars of advertising disseminated throughout network and cable television programs, radio broadcasts and in print media including newspapers and periodicals, causing its marks to become famous among members of the purchasing public.

 

On August 21, 2011, many years after the adoption and first use of TIME WARNER Marks, Respondent registered the disputed domains with a bad faith intent to profit from the registration and use of said names.

 

The disputed domains are nearly identical and confusingly similar to the TIME WARNER Marks.  Consumer confusion is particularly likely because each of the domain names uses as a prefix the Time-Warner owned marks TIME WARNER or TIME WARNER CABLE with a generic term or geographic location.

 

-6-

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domains. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the TIME WARNER Marks; nor is Respondent commonly known as “Time Warner.”

 

Respondent’s offer to sell an infringing name to Time Warner is evidence of Respondent’s knowledge of Time Warner’s rights in the Marks.

 

By registering 28 infringing Time-Warner-based domain names in a single day via a proxy service, Respondent has demonstrated a bad faith pattern of cybersquatting in violation of Paragraph 4(b)(ii). 

 

B. Response.

 

Respondent’s authorized representative relocated his law offices between the period of just prior to the 2011 Christmas holiday through the beginning of 2012. This Request is being submitted within the time for the Response to be submitted and Respondent is requesting a fourteen (14) day extension to file its Response.

 

Respondent’s meritorious defense is that Respondent did not purchase the domains in question in bad faith, as other domains were purchased on the same day as well. 

 

Respondent owns a total of 135 domains, all purchased in two (2) transactions.  Respondent does not actively pursue the purchase of web domains nor has Respondent ever sold a web domain. 

 

 

-7-

 

The domain names in question do not redirect to any third-party sites.  The domains displayed a story of the recent buy-out by Time Warner of local company Insight for billions of dollars, reflecting only positive information, with no misdirection.

 

Respondent’s offer to sell the domain name was only an attempt to settle the matter amicably with Time Warner.  Respondent declined numerous other offers from potential buyers.

 

Respondent’s purchase of domains through GoDaddy does not demonstrate a bad faith pattern of cybersquatting as Respondent had no intent to profit from the goodwill of Complainant’s mark as demonstrated by Respondent’s retention of the marks.

 

Respondent has not used commercial websites to mislead or to promote the domains based on any marks of the Complainant.  Respondent has a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the domains based on Complainant’s acquisition of a company in Kentucky, where there is a need for information to be disseminated to the public. 

 

FINDINGS

(1)  The domain names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and

(3)  The domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

-8-

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:

 

(4)  The domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(5)  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(6)  The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Identical or Confusingly Similar: Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that it has rights in the TIME WARNER mark. Complainant contends that it uses the mark in connection with cable broadcasting services and related products and services. Complainant has provided evidence in annex B of its registrations of the TIME WARNER mark through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,816,474 registered January 11, 1994). Panels have previously held that the registration of a mark by a complainant confers rights in that mark to the complainant. See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); see also

 

 

-9-

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has rights in the TIME WARNER marks, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant asserts that the <timewarnerappdownload.com>,

<timewarnerbowlinggreen.com>, <timewarnercablebowlinggreen.com>,

<timewarnercablecovington.com>, <timewarnercablecrestwood.com>,

<timewarnercableevansville.com>, <timewarnercablefortknox.com>,

<timewarnercableillinois.com>, <timewarnercableindiana.com>,

<timewarnercableipadapp.com>, <timewarnercablejasper.com>,

<timewarnercablekentucky.com>, <timewarnercablelexington.com>,

<timewarnercablelouisville.com>, <timewarnercablenewport.com>,

<timewarnercampbellsburg.com>, <timewarnercovington.com>,

<timewarnercrestwood.com>, <timewarnerevansville.com>, <timewarnerfortknox.com>,

<timewarnerillinois.com>, <timewarnerindiana.com>, <timewarneripadapp.com>,

<timewarnerjasper.com>, <timewarnerkentucky.com>, <timewarnerlexington.com>,

<timewarnerlouisville.com>, and <timewarnernewport.com> domain names are

confusingly similar to the TIME WARNER mark. Respondent makes some of the

following changes in each of the disputed domain names: the addition of a term which

describes Complainant’s business, the addition of a generic term, the addition of a

geographic descriptor, the elimination of the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, and the addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Panels have found that the addition of terms, whether they be descriptive, generic, or geographic, fails to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark. See Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc., D2002-0095 (WIPO May 7, 2002) (finding that several domain names incorporating the complainant’s entire EXPERIAN mark and merely adding the

 

-10-

term “credit” were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Shanghaihangwei Packing Material Co. Ltd., D2001-0443 (WIPO May 22, 2001) (finding the <ouricq.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s ICQ mark); see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. Kumar, FA 744436 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding that the <indiaticketmaster.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s TICKETMASTER mark). Additionally, the panels in Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007), and U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007), held that the elimination of spaces and the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant for a determination of whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a

mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly

similar to Complainant’s TIME WARNER mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), that is, as to whether or not its marks are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. 

 

Rights and Legitimate Interests: Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

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

 

-11-

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, nor licensed or otherwise authorized to use the TIME WARNER marks. The WHOIS record for the disputed domain names lists “Cell Repair By S & P” as the registrant of the disputed domain names. Panels have found that the WHOIS record and the complainant’s contentions are evidence of whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

The Panel, therefore, finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant also contends that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the marks. Complainant provides credible evidence in the form of screenshots (

 

-12-

see Annex G) in support of its claims, that the disputed domain names resolve to websites which display links to competing and noncompeting goods and services under titles such as “Time Warner Cable” and “Cabinet Knobs.” The panels in ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007), and Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007), held that the display of links to competing or noncompeting goods or services is not a use which gives a respondent rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to display links to goods and services, some of which compete with Complainant, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii).

 

Complainant next argues that Respondent expressed a willingness to sell the disputed domain names, which demonstrates that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant includes correspondence with Respondent in which Respondent expresses that it is interested in making a website sale. The Panel finds that Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain names is evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 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 Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (“UDRP precedent is clear that auctioning domains does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of domains.”).

 

-13-

 

 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith: Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant offers convincing arguments through its Exhibit H that Respondent could not have registered and used the disputed domain names without actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the TIME WARNER mark, given Time Warner’s given rank of 95th out of the Fortune 500, and that it has annual revenues of $26, 888. million dollars. It is no leap to infer that the name and trademarks of a corporation of this magnitude, would be well known and even famous, given also  Complainant’s citation of their expenditure of millions of dollars in advertising.

 

On August 21, 2011, Respondent bulk registered 28 domain names, all of which contained components of famous names.  Respondent had no apparent interest in these names and subsequently offered at least one such name for sale. This is a classic case of cybersquatting, and thus constitutes credible evidence that Respondent was aware of the TIME WARNER marks and Complainant’s rights in these marks at the time of registration of said marks.  

 

In an e-mail dated August 31, 2011, Respondent offered to sell the domain name <timewarnercablekentucky.com> to Time Warner.  Prior panels have found that where a disputed domain name was registered and used with the intent to sell the disputed domain name, bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) is apparent. 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 Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered domain names for sale). The Panel, therefore, finds that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) by registering and using the disputed domain name with the intent to sell.

 

-14-

The Panel holds that the widespread reputation of this major corporation, Respondent’s  bulk registration of domain names containing components of famous corporate names  and marks, apparently unrelated to the registrant, and the subsequent offering of a domain name for sale, constitutes a totality of circumstances which leads to the inevitable conclusion that Respondent had actual knowledge of Claimant’s marks at the time of his registration of the disputed domain names, and thus registered these names in bad faith.   

 

While constructive notice has not generally been held to suffice for a finding of bad faith registration and use, the Panel nonetheless finds, that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) as Panel can legitimately infer from the totality of the above-cited circumstances  that  Respondent  had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark rights.  See Deep Foods, Inc. v. Jamruke, LLC, FA 648190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2006) (stating that while mere constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, where the circumstances indicate that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s mark when it registered the domain name, panels can find bad faith); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).

 

Panel has viewed Complainant’s Annex G, consisting of Respondent’s screenshots and has seen thereon, display links to competing goods and services under headings such as “Time Warner” and “Time Warner Cable.”  The presence of these diversionary links on a website encaptioned with a disputed domain name, constitutes clear and convincing evidence that Respondent used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

 

 

-15-

The Panels in Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007), and Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007), held that the display of competing links on a disputed domain name is evidence of the respondent’s bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by registering and using the disputed domain names in order to display links to goods and services which compete with those that Complainant offers in the broadcasting industry and in order to disrupt Complainant’s business.

 

Complainant asserts that the disputed domains are nearly identical and confusingly similar to TIME WARNER Marks.  Consumer confusion is particularly likely because each of the domain names uses as a prefix the Time Warner-owned marks TIME WARNER or TIME WARNER CABLE with a generic term or geographic location.  Merely adding a generic term or geographic location to the famous Time Warner trademarks falsely implies that Time Warner endorses or is affiliated with Respondent or the companies promoted at his web sites. The resultant consumer confusion permits Respondent  to take commercial advantage of Internet users’ mistakes as to the source of the disputed domain names.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names resolve to websites which display links to competing and noncompeting goods and services. These links are headed with such titles as “Atomic Clocks” and “Time Warner Cable.” The Panel infers that Respondent receives compensation for the display of these links and the Internet users which click through them. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) in order to take advantage of Internet users’ mistakes and presumptions as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the disputed domain names and to profit, thereby. See

 

-16-

 

AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites).

 

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 <timewarnerappdownload.com>, <timewarnerbowlinggreen.com>, <timewarnercablebowlinggreen.com>, <timewarnercablecovington.com>, <timewarnercablecrestwood.com>, <timewarnercableevansville.com>, <timewarnercablefortknox.com>, <timewarnercableillinois.com>, <timewarnercableindiana.com>, <timewarnercableipadapp.com>, <timewarnercablejasper.com>, <timewarnercablekentucky.com>, <timewarnercablelexington.com>, <timewarnercablelouisville.com>, <timewarnercablenewport.com>, <timewarnercampbellsburg.com>, <timewarnercovington.com>, <timewarnercrestwood.com>, <timewarnerevansville.com>, <timewarnerfortknox.com>, <timewarnerillinois.com>, <timewarnerindiana.com>, <timewarneripadapp.com>, <timewarnerjasper.com>,

 

-17-

<timewarnerkentucky.com>, <timewarnerlexington.com>, <timewarnerlouisville.com>, and <timewarnernewport.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.  

 

 

 

Carol Stoner, Esq.,  Panelist

Dated:  February 08, 2012

 

 

-18-

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page