Quibids Holdings LLC v. Above.com Domain Privacy
Claim Number: FA1201001426801
Complainant is Quibids Holdings LLC (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Above.com Domain Privacy (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <wwquibids.com>, <wuibids.com>, <wquibids.com>, <uqibids.com>, <qyuibids.com>, <qyibids.com>, <qwuibids.com>, <quybids.com>, <quubids.com>, <quoibids.com>, <qulbids.com>, <qukbids.com>, <qujibids.com>, <quiubids.com>, <quiobids.com>, <quinids.com>, <quinbids.com>, <quilbids.com>, <quigids.com>, <quibuids.com>, <quibods.com>, <quibnids.com>, <quibizs.com>, <quibiuds.com>, <quibiss.com>, <quibisds.com>, <quibiids.com>, <quibigs.com>, <quibifs.com>, <quibies.com>, <quibieds.com>, <quibidx.com>, <quibidsd.com>, <quibidsa.com>, <quibidf.com>, <quibide.com>, <quibidd.com>, <quibidc.com>, <quibidas.com>, <quibics.com>, <qquibids.com>, <qoibids.com>, <qiuibids.com>, <qhibids.com>, <duibids.com>, and <aquibids.com>, registered with Above.Com Pty Ltd.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 26, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 26, 2012.
On January 29, 2012, Above.Com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wwquibids.com>, <wuibids.com>, <wquibids.com>, <uqibids.com>, <qyuibids.com>, <qyibids.com>, <qwuibids.com>, <quybids.com>, <quubids.com>, <quoibids.com>, <qulbids.com>, <qukbids.com>, <qujibids.com>, <quiubids.com>, <quiobids.com>, <quinids.com>, <quinbids.com>, <quilbids.com>, <quigids.com>, <quibuids.com>, <quibods.com>, <quibnids.com>, <quibizs.com>, <quibiuds.com>, <quibiss.com>, <quibisds.com>, <quibiids.com>, <quibigs.com>, <quibifs.com>, <quibies.com>, <quibieds.com>, <quibidx.com>, <quibidsd.com>, <quibidsa.com>, <quibidf.com>, <quibide.com>, <quibidd.com>, <quibidc.com>, <quibidas.com>, <quibics.com>, <qquibids.com>, <qoibids.com>, <qiuibids.com>, <qhibids.com>, <duibids.com>, and <aquibids.com> domain names are registered with Above.Com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Above.Com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.Com Pty Ltd. 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 February 7, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 27, 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@wwquibids.com, postmaster@wuibids.com, postmaster@wquibids.com, postmaster@uqibids.com, postmaster@qyuibids.com, postmaster@qyibids.com, postmaster@qwuibids.com, postmaster@quybids.com, postmaster@quubids.com, postmaster@quoibids.com, postmaster@qulbids.com, postmaster@qukbids.com, postmaster@qujibids.com, postmaster@quiubids.com, postmaster@quiobids.com, postmaster@quinids.com, postmaster@quinbids.com, postmaster@quilbids.com, postmaster@quigids.com, postmaster@quibuids.com, postmaster@quibods.com, postmaster@quibnids.com, postmaster@quibizs.com, postmaster@quibiuds.com, postmaster@quibiss.com, postmaster@quibisds.com, postmaster@quibiids.com, postmaster@quibigs.com, postmaster@quibifs.com, postmaster@quibies.com, postmaster@quibieds.com, postmaster@quibidx.com, postmaster@quibidsd.com, postmaster@quibidsa.com, postmaster@quibidf.com, postmaster@quibide.com, postmaster@quibidd.com, postmaster@quibidc.com, postmaster@quibidas.com, postmaster@quibics.com, postmaster@qquibids.com, postmaster@qoibids.com, postmaster@qiuibids.com, postmaster@qhibids.com, postmaster@duibids.com, and postmaster@aquibids.com. Also on February 7, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 2, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <wwquibids.com>, <wuibids.com>, <wquibids.com>, <uqibids.com>, <qyuibids.com>, <qyibids.com>, <qwuibids.com>, <quybids.com>, <quubids.com>, <quoibids.com>, <qulbids.com>, <qukbids.com>, <qujibids.com>, <quiubids.com>, <quiobids.com>, <quinids.com>, <quinbids.com>, <quilbids.com>, <quigids.com>, <quibuids.com>, <quibods.com>, <quibnids.com>, <quibizs.com>, <quibiuds.com>, <quibiss.com>, <quibisds.com>, <quibiids.com>, <quibigs.com>, <quibifs.com>, <quibies.com>, <quibieds.com>, <quibidx.com>, <quibidsd.com>, <quibidsa.com>, <quibidf.com>, <quibide.com>, <quibidd.com>, <quibidc.com>, <quibidas.com>, <quibics.com>, <qquibids.com>, <qoibids.com>, <qiuibids.com>, <qhibids.com>, <duibids.com>, and <aquibids.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUIBIDS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwquibids.com>, <wuibids.com>, <wquibids.com>, <uqibids.com>, <qyuibids.com>, <qyibids.com>, <qwuibids.com>, <quybids.com>, <quubids.com>, <quoibids.com>, <qulbids.com>, <qukbids.com>, <qujibids.com>, <quiubids.com>, <quiobids.com>, <quinids.com>, <quinbids.com>, <quilbids.com>, <quigids.com>, <quibuids.com>, <quibods.com>, <quibnids.com>, <quibizs.com>, <quibiuds.com>, <quibiss.com>, <quibisds.com>, <quibiids.com>, <quibigs.com>, <quibifs.com>, <quibies.com>, <quibieds.com>, <quibidx.com>, <quibidsd.com>, <quibidsa.com>, <quibidf.com>, <quibide.com>, <quibidd.com>, <quibidc.com>, <quibidas.com>, <quibics.com>, <qquibids.com>, <qoibids.com>, <qiuibids.com>, <qhibids.com>, <duibids.com>, and <aquibids.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwquibids.com>, <wuibids.com>, <wquibids.com>, <uqibids.com>, <qyuibids.com>, <qyibids.com>, <qwuibids.com>, <quybids.com>, <quubids.com>, <quoibids.com>, <qulbids.com>, <qukbids.com>, <qujibids.com>, <quiubids.com>, <quiobids.com>, <quinids.com>, <quinbids.com>, <quilbids.com>, <quigids.com>, <quibuids.com>, <quibods.com>, <quibnids.com>, <quibizs.com>, <quibiuds.com>, <quibiss.com>, <quibisds.com>, <quibiids.com>, <quibigs.com>, <quibifs.com>, <quibies.com>, <quibieds.com>, <quibidx.com>, <quibidsd.com>, <quibidsa.com>, <quibidf.com>, <quibide.com>, <quibidd.com>, <quibidc.com>, <quibidas.com>, <quibics.com>, <qquibids.com>, <qoibids.com>, <qiuibids.com>, <qhibids.com>, <duibids.com>, and <aquibids.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Quibids Holdings LLC, owns a federal trademark registration for the QUIBIDS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,870,521 filed March 30, 2010 registered November 2, 2010). Complainant uses the mark to offer its online auction services through the <quibids.com> domain name.
Respondent, Above.com Domain Privacy, registered all but one of the disputed domain names on August 24, 2010. The <duibids.com> domain name was registered on February 24, 2011. The disputed domain names all resolve to directory websites offering links to third-party companies, some of which are unrelated to Complainant and some of which compete with Complainant.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Although Complainant argues that the common law establishes its rights in the QUIBIDS mark, the Panel declines to perform that analysis due to the existence of a federal trademark registration for the mark issued by the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,870,521 filed March 30, 2010 registered November 2, 2010). Complainant has provided a printout from the USPTO website which verifies that the mark is registered and that Complainant owns the registration. The Panel also notes that the information provided identifies March 30 as the filing date of the registration. The Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), dating back to March 30, 2010, the filing date of the trademark registration. 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 Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO “date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent’s registration”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its QUIBIDS mark. The disputed domain names are all comprised of what the Panel concludes are typographic errors and mistakes that may occur when an individual attempts to type Complainant’s mark into its web-browser, along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” All of the domain names either transpose letters, add letters, subtract letters, or change letters from Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUIBIDS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s disputed domain names were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because the disputed domain names were common misspellings of the mark involving keys that were adjacent to the current keys comprising the complainant’s mark); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Party Night, Inc., FA 114546 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2002) (finding that the <neimanmacus.com> domain name was a simple misspelling of the complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark and was a classic example of typosquatting, which was evidence that the domain name was confusingly similar to the mark); Am. Online, Inc. v. Amigos On Line RJ, FA 115041 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 28, 2002) (finding that the <aolrj.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark because “…the addition of a string of indiscriminate letters to a famous mark in a second level domain does not differentiate the domain name from the mark.”); Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); Pfizer Inc. v. BargainName.com, D2005-0299 (WIPO Apr. 28, 2005) (holding that the <pfzer.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s PFIZER mark, as the respondent simply omitted the letter “i”); Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”)
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Complainant has successfully shifted the burden of proof to Complainant by making what the Panel finds is a prima facie case indicating that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (finding that if the complainant satisfies its prima facie burden, “then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”). Because Respondent has failed to offer anything in response to Complainant’s contentions in this dispute, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). However, the Panel will still examine the record in its entirety and consider Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names in accordance with the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names identifies the registrant as the privacy service “Above.com Domain Privacy.” No other evidence on record speaks to this particular element. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also 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).
Complainant also argues that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The <wuibids.com>, <wquibids.com>, <uqibids.com>, <qyuibids.com>, <qyibids.com>, <qwuibids.com>, <quybids.com>, <quubids.com>, <quoibids.com>, <qulbids.com>, <qukbids.com>, <qujibids.com>, <quiobids.com>, <quinids.com>, <quinbids.com>, <quilbids.com>, <quigids.com>, <quibuids.com>, <quibods.com>, <quibnids.com>, <quibizs.com>, <quibiuds.com>, <quibiss.com>, <quibisds.com>, <quibiids.com>, <quibifs.com>, <quibies.com>, <quibieds.com>, <quibidsd.com>, <quibidsa.com>, <quibidf.com>, <quibide.com>, <quibidd.com>, <quibidc.com>, <quibidas.com>, <quibics.com>, <qquibids.com>, <qoibids.com>, <qiuibids.com>, <qhibids.com>, <duibids.com>, and <aquibids.com> disputed domain names resolve to websites offering links to third-party businesses, some of which are Complainant’s competitors in the online auction world. Previous panels have determined that such a use does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be a use in connection with 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 also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services). Therefore, the Panel finds 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 of the disputed domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant claims that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <wwquibids.com>, <quiubids.com>, <qwuibigs.com>, and <quibidx.com> domain names. These four domain names all resolve to Complainant’s own website through its affiliate program. Prior panels have concluded that such a use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, nor does it confer upon Respondent rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Jablome, FA 124861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (by signing up for the complainant’s affiliate program upon registering the domain name, which was a misspelling of the complainant’s mark, the respondent intended to use the domain name to generate profit at the complainant’s expense, thereby evidencing a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)); see also Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) where it used the domain name <deluxeform.com> to redirect users to the complainant’s <deluxeforms.com> domain name and to receive a commission from the complainant through its affiliate program). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names listed above under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s disputed domain names are clear examples of typosquatting as they all result from common typographical errors. As mentioned above, the Panel agrees with Complainant about the nature of the disputed domain names. By engaging in typosquatting, the Panel finds further evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
Complainant claims that Respondent’s <wuibids.com>, <wquibids.com>, <uqibids.com>, <qyuibids.com>, <qyibids.com>, <qwuibids.com>, <quybids.com>, <quubids.com>, <quoibids.com>, <qulbids.com>, <qukbids.com>, <qujibids.com>, <quiobids.com>, <quinids.com>, <quinbids.com>, <quilbids.com>, <quigids.com>, <quibuids.com>, <quibods.com>, <quibnids.com>, <quibizs.com>, <quibiuds.com>, <quibiss.com>, <quibisds.com>, <quibiids.com>, <quibifs.com>, <quibies.com>, <quibieds.com>, <quibidsd.com>, <quibidsa.com>, <quibidf.com>, <quibide.com>, <quibidd.com>, <quibidc.com>, <quibidas.com>, <quibics.com>, <qquibids.com>, <qoibids.com>, <qiuibids.com>, <qhibids.com>, <duibids.com>, and <aquibids.com> domain names were registered and are being used for Respondent own commercial gain. The disputed domain names listed above resolve to directory websites offering links to third-party businesses, some of which compete with Complainant’s business. Respondent presumably collects a click through fee each time an Internet user is diverted to one of those websites through the links offered. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names listed above in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because of its apparent attempt to gain commercially from the disputed domain names. See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is registered and using the <wwquibids.com>, <quiubids.com>, <qwuibigs.com>, and <quibidx.com> domain names in bad faith because they resolve to Complainant’s website through the affiliate program. Complainant has provided the screenshots along with technical information that verifies its claims regarding these four domains. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the abovementioned domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Internet Hosting, FA 124516 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (“Redirecting Internet users attempting to reach a complainant’s website in order to gain a profit off of a complainant is one example of bad faith use and registration under the Policy.”); see also Cricket Commc’ns, Inc. v. Oliver, FA 954005 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent registered domain names containing the complainant’s mark after enrolling in the complainant’s affiliate program).
Lastly, Complainant contends that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting, which in and of itself demonstrates bad faith registration and use. The Panel agrees with Complainant that the disputed domain names registered by Respondent are classic examples of typosquatted domain names. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwquibids.com>, <wuibids.com>, <wquibids.com>, <uqibids.com>, <qyuibids.com>, <qyibids.com>, <qwuibids.com>, <quybids.com>, <quubids.com>, <quoibids.com>, <qulbids.com>, <qukbids.com>, <qujibids.com>, <quiubids.com>, <quiobids.com>, <quinids.com>, <quinbids.com>, <quilbids.com>, <quigids.com>, <quibuids.com>, <quibods.com>, <quibnids.com>, <quibizs.com>, <quibiuds.com>, <quibiss.com>, <quibisds.com>, <quibiids.com>, <quibigs.com>, <quibifs.com>, <quibies.com>, <quibieds.com>, <quibidx.com>, <quibidsd.com>, <quibidsa.com>, <quibidf.com>, <quibide.com>, <quibidd.com>, <quibidc.com>, <quibidas.com>, <quibics.com>, <qquibids.com>, <qoibids.com>, <qiuibids.com>, <qhibids.com>, <duibids.com>, and <aquibids.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: March 13, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page