Austin Rare Coins, Inc. v. Hoa Nguyen
Claim Number: FA1204001440355
Complainant is Austin Rare Coins, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric Menhart of CyberLaw PC, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is Hoa Nguyen (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <acoins.com>, <austinreport.com>, <goldcoins.org>, <goldinfo.net>, <goldprices.com>, <rarecoins.com>, <rarecoins.org>, and <silverinfo.net>, registered with Onlinenic, Inc.
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Flip Petillion, Tyrus R. Atkinson, and Dennis A. Foster as Panelists.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 20, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 20, 2012.
On April 23, 2012, Onlinenic, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <acoins.com>, <austinreport.com>, <goldcoins.org>, <goldinfo.net>, <goldprices.com>, <rarecoins.com>, <rarecoins.org>, and <silverinfo.net> domain names are registered with Onlinenic, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Onlinenic, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Onlinenic, 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 April 26, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 16, 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@acoins.com, postmaster@austinreport.com, postmaster@goldcoins.org, postmaster@goldinfo.net, postmaster@goldprices.com, postmaster@rarecoins.com, postmaster@rarecoins.org, and postmaster@silverinfo.net. Also on April 26, 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 May 24, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Flip Petillion, Tyrus R. Atkinson and Dennis A. Foster 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant makes the following allegations:
1) Complainant owns common law rights in marks based on the disputed domain names through Complainant’s extensive and continuous ownership of the <acoins.com>, <austinreport.com>, <goldcoins.org>, <goldinfo.net>, <goldprices.com>, <rarecoins.com>, <rarecoins.org>, and <silverinfo.net> domain names.
2) Respondent registered the disputed domain names between March 30, 2012 and April 23, 2012 after unlawfully seizing the domain names from Complainant in order to harass Complainant’s customers.
3) Respondent intends to make a profit from the disputed domain names.
4) Respondent’s seizure of the disputed domain names is being investigated by a federal agency.
5) Respondent is not making an active use of the disputed domain names.
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the marks based off of the disputed domain names and the domain names themselves.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is the previous holder of the disputed domain names <acoins.com>, <austinreport.com>, <goldcoins.org>, <goldinfo.net>, <goldprices.com>, <rarecoins.com>, <rarecoins.org>, and <silverinfo.net> . Complainant used the disputed domain names in relation to the provision of information. Respondent has taken control over the disputed domain names and uses the disputed domain names to provide the same content as Complainant used to provide through these domain names.
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.
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.”).
Previous panels have held that a complainant need not own a national trademark registration in order to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) if the complainant can demonstrate common law rights. See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist); see also Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (“The Policy does not require that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist.”). The Panel may agree that Complainant is not required to register a mark with a national agency in order to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant claims to own rights in the ACOINS.COM mark, based on the <acoins.com> domain name, through its extensive and continuous use of the mark and disputed domain name since September 2002. Complainant alleges it maintained ownership of the disputed domain name until the time of Respondent’s seizure of the disputed domain names. Complainant provides the Panel with historical WHOIS information regarding the <acoins.com> domain name and argues that third parties recognize the ACOINS.COM mark as belonging to Complainant and that the amount of traffic at the former resolving website establishes common law rights. According to the Panel, the mere fact that a domain name such as the <acoins.com> domain name generates a decent amount of traffic is insufficient to demonstrate common law rights in its ACOINS.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as Complainant fails to show that the ACOINS.COM sign acquired secondary meaning. See Vachovsky v. A+ Hosting Inc., D2006-0703 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2006) (finding that to establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant must show that its mark has acquired secondary meaning, i.e., that the public associates the asserted mark with complainant’s goods and services and deciding that the complainant has provided no documentary evidence of its contentions that could allow the Panel to conclude that the terms “Aplus” or “Aplus.Net” have been used by the Complainant in a way and to an extent which would justify a finding of trademark rights under the Policy).
Complainant claims rights in the AUSTINREPORT.COM mark, based on the <austinreport.com> domain name, through its consistent ownership of the disputed domain name since 2009. Complainant asserts that its registration for its assumed name, “The Austin Report,” with the Texas Secretary of State in 2000 supports its rights in the mark. See Complainant’s Exhibit 16. Complainant provides the Panel with historical WHOIS information regarding the <austinreport.com> domain name. See Complainant’s Exhibit 14. Complainant also presents evidence of Complainant’s website that formerly resolved from the disputed domain name and the Internet traffic reports for its former website. See Complainant’s Exhibits 14 & 32. The fact that Complainant registered the assumed name “The Austin Report” with the Texas Secretary of State in combination with the continued use Complainant has made of the disputed domain name demonstrates that Complainant has rights in the AUSTIN REPORT sign pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also Stellar Call Ctrs. Pty Ltd. v. Bahr, FA 595972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 19, 2005) (finding that the complainant established common law rights in the STELLAR CALL CENTRES mark because the complainant demonstrated that its mark had acquired secondary meaning).
Complainant contends that it owns rights in the GOLDCOINS.ORG mark, based on the <goldcoins.org> domain name, through its consistent ownership of the mark and the disputed domain name since 2001. Complainant contends that it formerly used the disputed domain name regularly to advertise its services and that the former resolving website contained the statement “Copyright 2003 Austin Rare Coins. Inc.” See Complainant’s Exhibit 18. Complainant also includes with its Complaint the historical WHOIS information regarding the <goldcoins.org> domain name, which shows that Complainant formerly owned the disputed domain name. See Complainant’s Exhibit 17. The Panel also notes that Complainant provides the Internet traffic report for its former website resolving from the disputed domain name, showing that the <goldcoins.org> domain name generated a decent amount of traffic. See Complainant’s Exhibit 33. However, the Panel considers this to be insufficient to demonstrate common law rights in a GOLDCOINS.ORG mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as Complainant fails to show that the GOLDCOINS.ORG sign acquired secondary meaning, especially given the generic nature of this sign. See Vachovsky v. A+ Hosting Inc., D2006-0703 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2006) (finding that to establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant must show that its mark has acquired secondary meaning, i.e., that the public associates the asserted mark with complainant’s goods and services and deciding that the complainant has provided no documentary evidence of its contentions that could allow the Panel to conclude that the terms “Aplus” or “Aplus.Net” have been used by the Complainant in a way and to an extent which would justify a finding of trademark rights under the Policy).
Complainant asserts rights in its GOLDINFO.NET mark through its consistent use of the mark and the <goldinfo.net> domain name, which Complainant claims the mark is based on, in the marketplace. Complainant asserts that it registered the name “Gold Information Network” as one of its assumed names with the Texas Secretary of State in 2000. See Complainant’s Exhibit 21. Complainant further alleges that it used the GOLDINFO.NET mark and the <goldinfo.net> domain name in newsletters and invested in a custom search engine to promote the mark and disputed domain name. See Complainant’s Exhibit 44. Complainant also provides the Panel with the historical WHOIS information and the archived copy of its former website. See Complainant’s Exhibits 19 & 20. However, the Panel considers this to be insufficient to demonstrate common law rights in a GOLDINFO.NET mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as Complainant fails to show that the GOLDINFO.NET sign acquired secondary meaning, especially given the generic nature of this sign. See Vachovsky v. A+ Hosting Inc., D2006-0703 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2006) (finding that to establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant must show that its mark has acquired secondary meaning, i.e., that the public associates the asserted mark with complainant’s goods and services and deciding that the complainant has provided no documentary evidence of its contentions that could allow the Panel to conclude that the terms “Aplus” or “Aplus.Net” have been used by the Complainant in a way and to an extent which would justify a finding of trademark rights under the Policy).
Complainant alleges that it owns rights in its GOLDPRICES.COM mark, based on its <goldprices.com> domain name, through its continued maintenance of ownership of the disputed domain name. Complainant argues that the volume of traffic its former resolving website generated is sufficient to establish common law rights. See Complainant’s Exhibit 35. Complainant also provides the historical WHOIS information to demonstrate its rights in the mark. See Complainant’s Exhibit 23. According to the Panel, this is insufficient to establish common law rights in its GOLDPRICES.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i),as Complainant fails to show that the GOLDPRICES.COM sign acquired secondary meaning, especially given the generic nature of this sign. See Vachovsky v. A+ Hosting Inc., D2006-0703 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2006) (finding that to establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant must show that its mark has acquired secondary meaning, i.e., that the public associates the asserted mark with complainant’s goods and services and deciding that the complainant has provided no documentary evidence of its contentions that could allow the Panel to conclude that the terms “Aplus” or “Aplus.Net” have been used by the Complainant in a way and to an extent which would justify a finding of trademark rights under the Policy).
Complainant argues that it owns rights in the RARECOINS.COM mark, based on the <rarecoins.com> domain name, through Complainant’s continued use of the mark and disputed domain name and by advertising its services at the former resolving website. Complainant alleges that it clearly represents the source of its goods and services on the resolving website and that the traffic to the resolving website is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the domain name. See Complainant’s Exhibits 25 & 36. Complainant also includes the historical WHOIS information that shows Complainant’s prior ownership of the disputed domain name. See Complainant’s Exhibit 24. According to the Panel, this does not demonstrate common law rights in the RARECOINS.COM sign under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as Complainant fails to show that the RARECOINS.COM sign acquired secondary meaning, especially given the generic nature of this sign. See Vachovsky v. A+ Hosting Inc., D2006-0703 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2006) (finding that to establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant must show that its mark has acquired secondary meaning, i.e., that the public associates the asserted mark with complainant’s goods and services and deciding that the complainant has provided no documentary evidence of its contentions that could allow the Panel to conclude that the terms “Aplus” or “Aplus.Net” have been used by the Complainant in a way and to an extent which would justify a finding of trademark rights under the Policy).
Complainant claims rights in its RARECOINS.ORG mark, based on the <rarecoins.org> domain name, by consistently using the mark and disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that it has used the mark, disputed domain name, and resolving website to advertise its services since 2000. See Complainant’s Exhibits 27 & 28. Complainant argues that it received enough traffic at the former website resolving from the disputed domain name to establish common law rights in the mark. See Complainant’s Exhibit 37. According to the Panel, this does not demonstrate common law rights in the RARECOINS.ORG sign under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as Complainant fails to show that the RARECOINS.ORG sign acquired secondary meaning, especially given the generic nature of this sign. See Vachovsky v. A+ Hosting Inc., D2006-0703 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2006) (finding that to establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant must show that its mark has acquired secondary meaning, i.e., that the public associates the asserted mark with complainant’s goods and services and deciding that the complainant has provided no documentary evidence of its contentions that could allow the Panel to conclude that the terms “Aplus” or “Aplus.Net” have been used by the Complainant in a way and to an extent which would justify a finding of trademark rights under the Policy).
Complainant avers that it owns rights in the SILVERINFO.NET mark, based on the <silverinfo.net> domain name, through Complainant’s continuous use of the mark and disputed domain name since 2008. Complainant claims that it consistently used the mark and the disputed domain name as identification of itself, which Complainant claims is supported by the historical WHOIS information and the archive of the former resolving website. See Complainant’s Exhibit 29 & 30. Complainant also argues that it received traffic to the former resolving website, which Complainant contends sufficiently demonstrates its common law rights in the mark. See Complainant’s Exhibit 38. According to the Panel, this does not demonstrate common law rights in the SILVERINFO.NET sign under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as Complainant fails to show that the SILVERINFO.NET sign acquired secondary meaning, especially given the generic nature of this sign. See Vachovsky v. A+ Hosting Inc., D2006-0703 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2006) (finding that to establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant must show that its mark has acquired secondary meaning, i.e., that the public associates the asserted mark with complainant’s goods and services and deciding that the complainant has provided no documentary evidence of its contentions that could allow the Panel to conclude that the terms “Aplus” or “Aplus.Net” have been used by the Complainant in a way and to an extent which would justify a finding of trademark rights under the Policy).
Complainant argues that the <austinreport.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s AUSTINREPORT.COM mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <austinreport.com> is identical to Complainant’s AUSTINREPORT.COM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Shirmax Retail Ltd./Detaillants Shirmax Ltee v. CES Mktg Group Inc., AF-0104 (eRes. Mar. 20, 2000) (refusing to interpret Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in the conjunctive rather than disjunctive sense in holding that “mere identicality of a domain name with a registered trademark is sufficient to meet the first element [of the Policy], even if there is no likelihood of confusion whatsoever”); see also Porto Chico Stores, Inc. v. Zambon, D2000-1270 (WIPO Nov. 15, 2000) (stating that the panel should resolve whether a mark is identical or confusingly similar “by comparing the trademark and the disputed domain name, without regard to the circumstances under which either may be used.
As the the Panel concludes that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in relation to the <acoins.com>, <goldcoins.org>, <goldinfo.net>, <goldprices.com>, <rarecoins.com>, <rarecoins.org>, and <silverinfo.net>, there is no need to analyze the other two elements of the Policy for these domain names. See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); see also Hugo Daniel Barbaca Bejinha v. Whois Guard Protected, FA 836538 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2006) (deciding not to inquire into the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Therefore, the rest of this decision only deals with the <austinreport.com> domain name.
The Panel’s decision about the absence of sufficient evidence showing common law trademarks in relation to certain of the disputed domain names does not affect a possible challenge by Complainant in relation to the alleged theft of these disputed domain names by Respondent. However, the Panel finds itself not competent to rule on the allegations of theft in the framework of these proceedings.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information on record identifies the registrant of the domain names as “Hoa Nguyen,” which Complainant argues does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. The panel in M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006), stated that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name based on the WHOIS information, as well as other evidence submitted. In St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007), the panel held that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name when no evidence existed to support a conclusion that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel may determine that the WHOIS information, as well as the lack of other evidence, do not demonstrate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names and that, as a result, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in a manner demonstrating a bona fide offering of goods and services or in such a way to show a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain names in order to harass Complainant’s customers and seek a profit from a third-party sale and that Respondent had no permission to use the disputed domain names in any way. See Complainant’s Exhibit 47. Complainant alleges that Respondent has retained a majority of the content that was on the original resolving webpages and has not demonstrated any preparation to use the domain names. The Panel determines that Respondent’s failure to create new content for the resolving website without any explanation for this (in the absence of a response) constitutes non-use of the disputed <austinreport.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent makes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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).”). Alternatively, the Panel may find that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to continue to resolve to Complainant’s official websites. If the Panel makes this finding, the Panel may hold that such a use also does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii) . . .”); see also Better Existence with HIV v. AAA, FA 1363660 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 25, 2011) (finding that “even though the disputed domain name still resolves to Complainant’s own website, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in its own name fails to create any rights or legitimate interests in Respondent associated with the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)”).
The Panel considers that the enumerated Policy ¶ 4(b) factors are not exhaustive, and thus the totality of the circumstances should 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).
Complainant argues that Respondent gained access to the disputed domain names by means of using a registrar lock and that the resolving websites currently display a “robots.txt” file to block the content that was previously found on the resolving websites. Complainant contends that Respondent will “eventually” use the disputed domain names to make a profit through a third party sale or another manner. As noted above, the Panel is of the opinion that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to provide no new content on the resolving websites without any explanation for this is evidence of inactive use. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth Int’l, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393 (Aug. 12, 2008) (stating that passive use of the domain name can be considered bad faith use); see also Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (holding that, when a respondent does not make a use of the domain name and no other evidence shows that respondent registered and used the domain name in a non-infringing purpose, bad faith registration and use exists).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy in relation to one of the disputed domain names, the Panel concludes that relief shall be partially GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <austinreport.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Flip Petillion, Panelist
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Panelist
David A. Foster, Panelist
Dated: June 8, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page