3M Company v. Horn Peter / TelVision GmbH
Claim Number: FA1203001433019
Complainant is 3M Company (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Horn Peter / TelVision GmbH (“Respondent”), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <littmann.tel>, registered with EuroDNS SA.
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.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 5, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 5, 2012.
On March 6, 2012, EuroDNS SA confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <littmann.tel> domain name is registered with EuroDNS SA and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. EuroDNS SA has verified that Respondent is bound by the EuroDNS SA 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 16, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 5, 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@littmann.tel. Also on March 16, 2012, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 19, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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 the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
3M Company (hereafter “3M”) is the owner of the LITTMANN family of trademarks used with a variety of products and services in the medical industry. 3M and its predecessor in interest have used the LITTMANN mark in commerce continuously since at least as early as 1942. Additionally, 3M is the owner of numerous registrations for the marks LITTMANN in the United States. In particular, 3M is the owner of the following marks:
LITTMANN Stethoscopes Reg. No. 751809 USA
LITTMANN Eartips for stethoscopes Reg No. 1115217 USA
LITTMANN Full line of stethoscopes Reg. No. 2683822 USA
[Design Mark] Full line of stethoscopes Reg No. 2681330 USA
The foregoing LITTMANN marks are hereinafter jointly referred to as 3M’s “LITTMANN Marks.” 3M also uses its mark in connection with several websites, including the website affiliated with the domain name littmann.com. 3M first registered and used the littmann.com domain name on August 5, 1997.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix); NAF Supp. Rule 4(a).
3M has a principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota. 3M was founded in 1902. It has grown into a diversified technology company serving customers and communities worldwide with thousands of innovative products and services. 3M first began marking stethoscopes under the LITTMANN brand in 1967 when it acquired Cardiosonics Inc., a company founded by David Littmann, M.D. Dr. Littmann was a noted cardiologist, Harvard Medical School professor, researcher, and inventor who patented a revolutionary new stethoscope with greatly improved acoustics.
3M’s LITTMANN Marks are distinctive, widely recognized trademarks. LITTMANN branded stethoscopes have become the paragon in the medical industry against which all other stethoscopes are measured. Since 1942, the LITTMANN brand has enjoyed strong customer recognition, as documented by its proprietary marks used in connection with the sale of medical products in commerce. 3M and its LITTMANN Marks enjoy a strong reputation among consumers for offering quality, well-respected name brand stethoscope as shown on its website, littmann.com.
3M has invested substantial sums of money in developing and marketing its products and services under its LITTMANN Marks and has developed substantial goodwill and customer loyalty under said marks. As a result, consumers throughout the world recognize the LITTMANN Marks as an indicator of 3M's stethoscope products.
The Respondent registered the domain name LITTMANN.TEL. Upon information and belief, Respondent registered LITTMANN.TEL with the Registrar EuroDNS SA. (“EuroDNS”) using the EuroDNS’s registration services on or about January 22, 2011, under EuroDNS’s domain registration policy.
The Respondent has no statutory or common law trademark rights or any other right or legitimate interest to 3M’s LITTMANN Marks, the mark LITTMANN, the mark or LITTMANN.TEL. 3M has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use 3M’s LITTMANN Marks or any derivative mark for any purpose. 3M's rights in the LITTMANN mark date back to 1942. 3M’s predecessor in interest first took steps to protect its valuable LITTMANN Marks years before the Respondent registered LITTMANN.TEL. As such, there is no controversy as to the fact that 3M has priority over Respondent.
The Respondent has registered and used a domain name that is confusingly similar to the LITTMANN Marks in bad faith. There is no evidence LITTMANN.TEL was registered for a legitimate reason. The evidence shows LITTMANN.TEL was registered to trade upon the goodwill associated with 3M’s LITTMANN mark. Respondent associated LITTMANN.TEL with a website that has no content other than advertisements and a link to EuroDNS. That is not a legitimate use. That is bad faith. Transfer of LITTMANN.TEL to 3M is appropriate.
a. The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to 3M’s LITTMANN Marks.
LITTMANN.TEL is confusingly similar to 3M’s LITTMANN Marks. The domain name LITTMANN.TEL only differs from Complainant’s LITTMANN mark through the inclusion of the generic top-level domain “.tel.” The addition of the top-level domain is immaterial under the Policy. See, e.g., Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis.”).
b. The Respondent Does Not Have Any Right or Legitimate Interest in LITTMANN.TEL
Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in LITTMANN.TEL. The registration of a domain for the purpose of maintaining a website with no content is not a bona fide offering of goods pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i). Respondent is not using the mark for legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii) because Respondent has placed no content on the site except for a blank header. Moreover, Respondent has no legitimate right to the name in that it has no received permission to use the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
1. Respondent has not used the Domain Name in Connection with a Bona Fide Offering of Goods or Services or for a Legitimate Noncommercial or Fair use Purpose.
A respondent’s use of LITTMANN.TEL to resolve to a website with no content is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶¶(c)(i) and (iii). Morgan Stanley v. Guerilla Freedom Fighter c/o Bethesda Properties LLC, FA 1061232 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Oct 2, 2007) (holding resolution of domain name to website with no content was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); Nike, Inc. v. Crystal Int’l, D2001-0102 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent made no use of the infringing domain names).
Respondent does not have a bona fide interest in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii) in that Respondent has not placed any content on the website other than advertising and a link to the registrar EuroDNS. The domain name is not connected to a bona fide offering of goods or services and is not a legitimate use.
2. Respondent has no Legitimate Right to LITTMANN.TEL because 3M has not Granted Respondent Permission to use Its Marks.
Respondent also has no legitimate rights pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii) in that it is not commonly known by the mark and has not received 3M’s permission to use the mark. Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from complainant to use the trademarked name). A domain name registrant is presumed not to have a legitimate interest in a domain name where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; and (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Policy ¶4(c)(ii); Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (holding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark). Furthermore, it is “incumbent upon respondents to advance concrete evidence pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii) rebutting the latter assertion because this information is uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent.” Wilson v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA0502000417186 (Nat. Arb Forum March 29, 2005).
Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in LITTMANN.TEL. 3M has not licensed its LITTMANN Marks to Respondent. 3M’s prior rights to the LITTMANN Marks precede Respondent’s domain name registration. Additionally, there is no evidence Respondent is commonly known by the name LITTMANN. LITTMANN.TEL clearly does not refer to Respondent.
c. The Domain Name Has Been Registered and Used In Bad Faith
Respondent’s registration of LITTMANN.TEL in association with 3M’s LITTMANN Marks shows the registration was in bad faith. Respondent’s registration of LITTMANN.TEL with actual or constructive knowledge of 3M’s trademark rights in that name shows bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(ii). Because Respondent’s website associated with LITTMANN.TEL contains no content, Respondent has also acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶4(b)(iii) and (iv).
1. Respondent Registered LITTMANN.TEL in Bad Faith Knowing of 3M’s Trademark Rights in the LITTMANN Marks.
Respondent’s registration of LITTMANN.TEL was in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(ii) because at the time the name was registered, Respondent was on notice of 3M’s rights. “[T]here is a legal presumption of bad faith when [a] Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively.” Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct 24, 2002); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency, Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the domain names are so obviously connected with Complainant that the use or registration by anyone other than Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration). Regardless of actual knowledge, a respondent should have conducted a trademark search prior to the registration of the domain name. See Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Ult. Search Inc., WIPO Case D2001-1319 (Feb 1, 2002) (holding the failure to conduct a trademark search considered an element of bad faith).
Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of 3M’s trademark rights in its LITTMANN Marks prior to the registration of the domain name. 3M’s LITTMANN Marks were registered with the United States Trademark Office at the time LITTMANN.TEL was registered. Respondent was thus on constructive notice of 3M’s trademark rights in and to the LITTMANN Marks at the time the name was registered. On that basis alone, Respondent’s registration of a confusingly similar domain name shows bad faith. Further, the fame of the LITTMANN mark and lack of any other basis other than to squat on the mark shows Respondent’s actual knowledge of 3M’s LITTMANN marks.
2. Respondent Acted in Bad Faith when It Diverted Customers away from 3M to a Page with no Content.
Respondent’s diversion of traffic to a website with no content constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶4(b)(iii) and (iv). Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose); see also Body Shop Int’l PLC v. CPIC NET, D2000-1214 (WIPO Nov. 26, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) the respondent failed to use the domain name and (2) it is clear that the respondent registered the domain name as an opportunistic attempt to gain from the goodwill of the complainant); 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).
Respondent failed to use LITTMANN.TEL by placing no content on the website associated with that name other than advertising and a link to the registrar. Moreover, it is clear that respondent registered LITTMANN.TEL as an opportunistic attempt to gain from 3M. There is no evidence of any legitimate use for LITTMANN.TEL other than to attract consumers to Respondent’s websites and increase the traffic and cause consumers to click on Respondent’s advertisements. That traffic should be reaching 3M’s own websites. Respondent’s use of the domain name is bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds:
(1) the <littmann.tel> domain name 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 <littmann.tel> domain name; and
(3) There is inadequate proof the <littmann.tel> domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order to transfer or cancel a domain name:
(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.
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.”).
Complainant claims it owns a trademark registration with the USPTO for its LITTMANN mark (e.g., Reg. No. 751,809 registered October 31, 1961). The Panel finds Complainant’s USPTO trademark registration sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in the LITTMANN mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i), even though Respondent is located in Germany. See Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (finding trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kudrna, FA 686103 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the complainant’s registration of the DISNEY trademark with the USPTO prior to the respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is sufficient to prove that the complainant has rights in the mark pursuant to 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).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <littmann.tel> domain name only differs from Complainant’s LITTMANN by the addition of the sTLD “.tel.” The Panel determines the addition of an sTLD is irrelevant to a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis and finds Respondent’s <littmann.tel> domain name is identical to Complainant’s LITTMANN mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Morgan v. Labitrav, FA 1173244 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 26, 2008) (concluding that the addition of an sTLD is treated the same as a gTLD and is irrelevant to a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Bachini, FA 1411046 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 9, 2011) (holding that a disputed domain name is identical to a mark if the only change is the addition of an sTLD).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case 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 has 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 holds Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Respondent did not present a Response to this case. Respondent did not provide evidence it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed to use Complainant’s LITTMANN mark. The <littmann.tel> domain name is registered to “Horn Peter / TelVision GmbH.” Based on this evidence, the Panel concludes Respondent is not commonly known by the <littmann.tel> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See 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); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <littmann.tel> domain name resolves to an inactive website that simply contains a blank header, the name of the registrar, and advertisements for the registrar on the side of page. Complainant argues Respondent is not making an active use of the <littmann.tel> domain name. The Panel finds Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the <littmann.tel> domain name is evidence that Respondent is not making a Policy ¶4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or a Policy ¶4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <littmann.tel> domain name. See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
The Panel is most troubled by Complainant’s submission on this point. While Complainant has cited numerous authorities, their circumstances do not squarely fit the case at bar.
The Panel finds the enumerated Policy ¶4(b) factors are not exhaustive but illustrative. The totality of the circumstances may be considered when analyzing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith); see also Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that the criteria specified in 4(b) of the Policy is not an exhaustive list of bad faith evidence).
The Panel will first review each of the items under Policy ¶4(b).
¶4(b)(i) provides bad faith can be found in circumstances indicating Respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. Complainant has not alleged sufficient facts to make a finding under this provision. Complainant has not claimed Respondent is trying to sell or rent the domain name in question.
¶4(b)(ii) provides bad faith can be found if Respondent registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. Complainant has not alleged sufficient facts to make a finding under this provision. Complainant has not claimed Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct to prevent Complainant from reflecting Complainant’s mark in a domain name.
¶4(b)(iii) provides bad faith can be found if Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Complainant has not alleged sufficient facts to make a finding under this provision. Complainant has not claimed Respondent is a competitor nor that Complainant’s business is being disrupted.
¶4(b)(iv) provides bad faith can be found if by using the domain name, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s web site or location. Complainant has not alleged sufficient facts to make a finding under this provision. While Complainant has claimed traffic was diverted, it did not argue Respondent did it for commercial gain. Complainant did not argue its business was disrupted nor that Respondent received click through revenue from the links on Respondent’s web site (which is what complainants usually do).
Complainant suggests Respondent is not making an active use of the <littmann.tel> domain name demonstrates bad faith registration and use. See 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); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶4(a)(iii) of the Policy). While this domain was registered on January 22, 2011, the Panel cannot say (without more) that such non-use satisfies this requirement.
Complainant contends Respondent registered the <littmann.tel> domain name with constructive notice of Complainant's rights in the mark, in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's LITTMANN mark. The Panel finds bad faith arguments based on constructive notice are unpersuasive because UDRP case precedent declines to find bad faith solely as a result of constructive knowledge. See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy.").
The Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name and finds that actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii) as long as a competitor’s business is being disrupted. See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). Complainant failed to make such a claim.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) not satisfied.
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <littmann.tel> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, April 23, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page