ezTaxReturn.com, LLC v. I Domain Group / IT Manager
Claim Number: FA1208001458833
Complainant is ezTaxReturn.com, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by John J. Dabney of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Washington D.C., USA. Respondent is I Domain Group / IT Manager (“Respondent”), represented by Carson R. Guy, Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <eztaxreturns.com>, registered with eNom, Inc.
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.
Héctor A. Manoff as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 20, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 23, 2012.
On August 20, 2012, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <eztaxreturns.com> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 August 27, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 17, 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@eztaxreturns.com. Also on August 27, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 17, 2012.
An Additional Submission from Complainant was timely received on September 24, 2012.
On October 1, 2012, an Additional Submission from Respondent was timely received.
On September 19, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Héctor A. Manoff 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Complainant has continuously provided an online tax preparation and filing software program under the mark EZTAXRETURN.COM since 1999, through which it has successfully filed millions of U.S. state and federal tax returns.
2. Complainant provides its services to hundreds of thousands of customers each tax season and its business was positively reviewed by numerous financial reporters.
3. Complainant devotes substantial money and resources to advertising and marketing its services under the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark.
4. Complainant owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3910450 for the mark EZTAXRETURN.COM.
5. Complainant contends that it owns common law rights to the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark since at least as early as 1999 and owns domain names that incorporate the trademark EZTAXRETURN.COM.
5. The <eztaxreturns.com> domain name was registered on December 29, 2001, several years after Complainant’s rights in the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark had been established in 1999.
6. The <eztaxreturns.com> domain name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s EZTAXRETURN.COM mark, since it only differs by the addition of the “S” and incorporates Complainant’s EZTAXRETURN.COM mark in its entirety.
7. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <eztaxreturns.com> domain name since it is not commonly known by the names EZTAXRETURNS or EZTAXRETURNS.COM. In addition, typing the subject domain name into an Internet browser automatically forwards the user to a third-party website, http://www.internet-taxprep.com.
8. Respondent is not legitimately using, or making any bona fide use of, the <eztaxreturns.com> domain name, since there is no website hosted at said domain name, which redirects user to a third-party domain name.
9. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to register or use Complainant’s EZTAXRETURN.COM mark as part of any domain name.
10. Respondent has registered and is using the <eztaxreturns.com> domain name in bad faith because it is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known EZTAXRETURN.COM mark and redirects Internet users to a third-party website that offers online tax preparation and filing services directly competitive to those offered by Complainant. Moreover, Respondent is not the Registrant of the third-party website, which is owned by CCH Incorporated.
11. Respondent is profiting from Complainant’s EZTAXRETURN.COM mark and the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark to disrupt Complainant’s business.
12. According to submitted evidence, Respondent has consistently passively held or “parked” the disputed domain name. As from 2005, it started to redirect users to the website, http://www.internet-taxprep.com. The routine of passively holding of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.
13. Complainant registered its domain name <eztaxreturn.com> on November 28, 1999, and it was widely known in the United States before Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2001. That’s why it is inconceivable that the registration and use of the disputed domain name by Respondent is not an attempt in bad faith.
B. Respondent
1. Complainant’s trademark is not well known and was not well known in 2001 when Respondent registered its domain.
2. Complainant’s claim that it has filed millions of online tax returns is without basis in the record, since no evidence was offered to substantiate this claim. Respondent also objects to other allegations made by Complainant as being without merit or false.
3. Respondent also disputes Complainant’s allegation that Respondent is engaged in a directly competing business, since Respondent offers a variety of services Complainant cannot or does not.
4. Respondent contends that the marks are not identical, and further notes that, assuming a consumer was confused by the marks, any possible confusion would be immediately dispelled by a comparison of the web sites in question based on the look and feel of the two web sites.
5. Respondent is known by the name EZTAXRETURNS.COM since it has used, and continues to use, its domain in connection with a bona fide offering of services as seen by the voluminous numbers of tax returns it has processed since 2001.
6. Respondent has been continuously engaged in the business of providing tax-preparation assistance through its mark EZTAXRETURNS.COM for years. The majority of Respondent’s domains are registered under I Domain Group to maintain privacy and reduce solicitations.
7. Respondent uses a private label processing agreement to complete online tax preparation for clients with CCH Incorporated; however, EZTAXRETURNS.COM is a separate entity that operates in tandem with CCH Incorporated.
8. Respondent does not receive click-through fees, does not redirect to a website with unrelated links, and did not attempt to circumvent any mark used by Complainant because at the time of registration, Complainant had been in the business a very short time, was not well known, and remains unknown.
9. Complainant registered its domain on November 28, 1999 and Respondent registered its domain on December 29, 2001. It is patently absurd that two years of operating establishes “long and continuous use” of a mark or that Complainant’s mark was “well known” throughout the United States by December 29, 2001. More importantly, Complainant has completely failed to offer any evidence.
10. IRS documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests show that Complainant’s business has consistently performed less than ½ of 1% (<.005%) of all tax returns prepared and filed online by consumers in 2009-2011. Out of all tax returns filed, Complainant has an even smaller market share of just over 1/10th of 1% (.001%). This is evidence that Complainant was not, and is not, known throughout the country.
11. Complainant has not once attempted to contact Respondent regarding its use of the mark EZTAXRETURNS.COM since it registered that domain in 2001 until July 2012, approximately eleven years later.
12. Complainant’s domain name, as well as Respondent’s, are based primarily on commonly-used phrases and phrases that are especially well known in the tax industry: “tax return” and “ez.”
13. Respondent did not need Complainant’s authorization to use the mark EZTAXRETURNS.COM because there is no evidence in the record that such a combination of commonly used phrases in the tax industry were protected by a trademark in 2001, common law or otherwise.
14. Complainant did not have a trademark in its mark or common law rights to its mark in 2001. Second, Respondent had no actual, much less constructive, knowledge of Complainant’s mark at that time. Complainant offers no evidence of goodwill or notoriety of its mark in 2001.
15. The reality of the situation is that two parties registered marks using phrases that are used in common parlance, and even more so in the tax industry.
16. Respondent is in an private label processing agreement relationship for the online processing of tax returns and earns fees from customers and interacts with them over the telephone and online through its mark.
C. Complainant’s Additional Submission
1. The EZTAXRETURN.COM mark has been used in U.S. commerce in connection with Complainant’s online tax preparation and filing services since at least as early as 1999, as evidenced by U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3910450.
2. Respondent’s contention that its business is not directly competitive with Complainant is without merit: both parties offer services in the same general topic area (tax) and offer them through the same web-based channels of trade.
3. Respondent’s mere addition of the letter “S” to complainant’s mark does not make it distinguishable; the plural version of a mark is confusingly similar to the mark itself.
4. The name EZTAXRETURNS.COM was nowhere to be found on the CCH Site at the time the Complaint was filed, and prior thereto. Therefore, it is clear that the Subject Domain routes consumers to the CCH Site, and the tax services provided at the CCH Site are being conspicuously offered under the name CCH Incorporated – not EZTAXRETURNS.COM.
5. Respondent provides no evidence in the record to prove how consumers obtaining tax services at the CCH Site would be aware that EZTAXRETURNS.COM is an entity associated with such services. While Respondent may assert that it interacts with taxpayers who visit its website, according to the CCH Site, such interaction is being conducted under the name CCH Incorporated – not EZTAXRETURNS.COM.
6. As soon as the Complaint was filed, Respondent placed in bold letters the name EZTAXRETURNS.COM on the CCH Site. This hasty attempt to “use” the EZTAXRETURNS.COM name effectively concedes that the mark was not being legitimately used prior thereto.
7. Respondent’s allegation that it “has, and continues to use” the Subject Domain in connection with a bona fide offering of services is patently misleading. As set forth in the Complaint, Respondent has consistently passively held the Subject Domain by re-routing users to third party websites having no connection to the mark EZTAXRETURNS.COM.
8. Respondent intends to capitalize off of consumers who mistype Complainant’s website by forwarding them to a third-party site from which Respondent admittedly receives revenue.
9. Respondent I Domain Group receives profits from the tax services that are offered by CCH Incorporated.
10. Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to its site and it is doing so by using a domain comprised of a near-identical mark to that of Complainant.
D. Respondent’s Additional Submission
1. Complainant’s first use in commerce was at almost the end of 1999—November 28, 1999, a mere two years before Respondent registered and began
using its domain.
2. Respondent is not in direct competition with Complainant because, although Respondent provides all of the services Complainant provides, Complainant does not offer many of the services that Respondent offers.
3. The mark used by Respondent compared to that of the Complainant is not identical or confusingly similar because the words “tax returns” and “ez” are generic/descriptive terms that cannot be protected.
4. Complainant has not carried its minimal burden of making out a prima facie case that it has legitimate rights or interests in the mark <eztaxreturns.com> because Complainant cannot even show that its mark <eztaxreturn.com> was deserving of any protection in 2001.
5. Because Complainant had no trademark registration rights when Respondent registered and began using the Subject Domain, the Complainant must prove that its mark had secondary meaning under the common law.
6. Complainant is required, but has failed, to provide evidence that its mark was widely known before the date that Respondent’s domain was registered and put into use.
7. Respondent’s accurate statements regarding Complainant’s business are not illogical or irrelevant because they were introduced to rebut allegations made by Complainant that its business is well known and well regarded, which goes to secondary meaning and correspondingly, the amount of protection, if any, Complainant’s mark deserves.
8. Complainant’s share of the professional electronic filing industry was: .004675%.
9. Respondent reiterates that before any notice of the dispute (July of 2012, thirteen years after Complainant registered its domain using its mark), the Subject Domain has been used by Respondent to make a bona fide offering of services.
10. If Complainant had attempted a test return at <eztaxreturns.com> it would have seen that there are numerous opportunities to interact with <eztaxreturns.com> staff to assist in tax preparation.
11. Respondent contends that a private label processing agreement is NOT the equivalent of a click-through site or redirect.
12. Complainant has failed to carry its burden of establishing that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain in bad faith because Complainant has
offered no evidence, only mere allegations.
13. There is no evidence indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent is not cybersquatting and has never been involved in a UDRP arbitration proceeding ever before.
Complainant ezTaxReturn.com, LLC provides tax preparation and e-file services in the U.S. through its website at <eztaxreturn.com>, which was registered on November 28, 1999. Complainant also obtained a U.S. Trademark Registration for EZTAXRETURN.COM on January 25, 2011, but claims that it had been using the mark as from November 28, 1999.
Respondent I Domain Group / IT Manager registered the <eztaxreturns.com> domain name on December 29, 2001, and claims that it had been using such domain name for offering tax preparation and e-file services since then. Respondent’s <eztaxreturns.com> domain name redirects Internet users to <internet-taxprep.com>, which offers competing tax return preparation services.
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.
Complainant alleges that it owns rights in the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark. Complainant claims that it owns a trademark registration with the USPTO for the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark (Reg. No. 3,910,450 filed April 7, 2010; registered January 25, 2011).
Complainant additionally claims that it owns common law rights in the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark dating back to 1999. Complainant argues that it first began offering its tax return preparation services under its mark in 1999.
Respondent argues that Complainant does not sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark prior to Complainant’s trademark registration with the USPTO. Respondent claims that Complainant did not offer any supporting evidence of how, or how widespread, Complainant’s EZTAXRETURN.COM mark has been used. Respondent admits that Complainant did register a domain name incorporating the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark in 1999, but Respondent argues that this does not provide rights to Complainant. Moreover, Respondent contends that Complainant’s use of the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark was not widespread as Complainant’s business consistently performs less than .5% of all online tax returns prepared and filed compared to a third party, TurboTax, that prepares and files 62.24% of all online tax returns. The Panel notes that Respondent’s allegations about Complainant’s lack of evidence of use of its mark before obtaining the trademark registration EZTAXRETURN.COM are true and, thus, it holds that Complainant did not establish common law rights in the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Mega Shoes, Inc. v. Ostrick, FA 1362894 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2011) (finding the complainant’s unsworn assertion that it has been using the MEGA SHOES mark since 1994 failed to establish that complainant had acquired secondary meaning in the MEGA SHOES mark where there was very minimal evidence in the record to support this claim).
Therefore, the Panel determines that Complainant sufficiently demonstrated its rights in the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), but dating back only to April 7, 2010. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Planetary Soc’y v. Rosillo, D2001-1228 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2002) (holding that the effective date of Complainant’s trademark rights date back to the application’s filing date).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <eztaxreturns.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EZTAXRETURN.COM mark. Complainant notes that the only difference between the mark and the disputed domain name is the addition of the letter “s,” which Complainant argues does not create a notable distinction. The Panel agrees with Complainant and concludes that Respondent’s <eztaxreturns.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EZTAXRETURN.COM mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See T.R. World Gym-IP, LLC v. D’Addio, FA 956501 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2007) (finding that the addition of the letter “s” to a registered trademark in a contested domain name is not enough to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent also argues that Complainant’s mark does not deserve trademark protection because the words “tax returns” and “ez” are generic/descriptive terms that cannot be protected. In this regard, the Panel finds that such a determination is not necessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this portion of the Policy considers only whether Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
The issue may however be relevant to the other grounds (discussed below) because if Complainant’s mark is made up of generic and descriptive terms it may either be unenforceable or weak, and the Domain Name may not be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as a result. See Webvan Group, Inc. v. Atwood, D200-1512 (WIPO Feb. 20, 2001) (“[W]hen a mark is a relatively weak non-distinctive term, courts have found that the scope of protection may be limited to the identical term and that the addition of other descriptive matter may avoid confusion”).
Since these proceedings are not established to decide trademark disputes but only abusive domain name registrations, the Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), but only by a narrow margin.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests the <eztaxreturns.com> domain name, since it has provided no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the cited domain name. The WHOIS information corresponding to the domain name at issue identifies Respondent as “I Domain Group / IT Manager”.
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (“Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to the Domain Name. The threshold for making such a showing is quite low, since it is difficult to produce evidence to support a negative statement); 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 further claims that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s EZTAXRETURN.COM mark and is not affiliated, connected, or associated with Complainant. Based on this evidence, the Panel determines that Respondent is not commonly known by the <eztaxreturns.com> domain name for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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 further claims that Respondent’s <eztaxreturns.com> domain name redirects Internet users to <internet-taxprep.com>, which Complainant alleges offers competing tax return preparation services provided by a third party, CCH Incorporated. Complainant argues that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <eztaxreturns.com> domain name.
Respondent claims that it uses the <eztaxreturns.com> domain name in connection with its legitimate tax return preparation business, which is provided with the assistance of its partner, CCH Inc., through a private label processing agreement, and that EZTAXRETURNS.COM is a separate entity that provides real services.
Complainant denies Respondent’s previous allegations and contends that EZTAXRETURNS.COM is a click-through site or redirect to a competing site that provides the services. Respondent counters argue this allegation by stating that there are numerous opportunities to interact with <eztaxreturns.com> staff to assist in tax preparation but offers no evidence to substantiate such allegation. According the Respondent’s Response Annex 5, which is a printout of the website at the <eztaxreturns.com> domain name, the mark EZTAXRETURNS.COM is displayed at the top of the page. Complainant argues that Respondent added the EZTAXRETURNS.COM mark only after it was served of these proceedings. However, there is no evidence in the file that shows that the site did not bear the mark at the time these proceedings were initiated, since the printout provided by Complainant in the Complaint’s Annex 3 lacks a date and appears to be a scanned copy of a printout in which the date was erased or not scanned.
In its Additional Submission, Complainant provided Supplemental Annex 2, which is the redirected website’s privacy policy. Under the title “Private Label Sites” (page 4) the policy states: “This Service is provided to you through CCH INCORPORATED ("CCH"), as a technology and hosting partner pursuant to a joint marketing effort. CCH licenses its content, technology, software applications, hosting services and support services under a private label arrangement. We provide these private label partners full information regarding our Privacy Policy and require that they abide by this policy as a part of our contractual terms…..”.
Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that it is plausible that Respondent is partnering with CCH Inc. for providing its services.
The UDRP ¶ 4(c)(i) states that the use (by Respondent) of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4 (a) (ii).
Based on the submitted evidence, the Panel finds that these activities constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Digital Interactive Sys. Corp. v. Christian W, FA 708968 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 3, 2006) (concluding that the complainant failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) because the respondent provided sufficient evidence to convince the panel that it was using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)).
As noted above, Respondent also maintains that the terms “ez” and “tax returns” are common and generic/descriptive, and therefore, that Complainant does not have an exclusive monopoly on the terms on the Internet. The Panel accepts that the terms “ez” and “tax returns” have a particular descriptive meaning, particularly for people and entities looking for tax preparation and filing services.
On this basis, the Panel finds that Respondent is involved in the “tax preparation” area and has established sufficient rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Kaleidoscope Imaging, Inc. v. V Entm’t, FA 203207 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 5, 2004) (finding that the respondent was using the <kaleidoscope.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services because the term was “generic” and respondent was using the disputed domain name as a search tool for Internet users interested in kaleidoscopes).
This factor is also relevant in so far as the evidence seems to establish that Respondent was using the disputed domain name before Complainant had established any effective rights in the EZTAXRETURN.COM mark.
For these reasons Complainant fails to establish this ground.
Having concluded that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the Panel is entitled to find that Respondent did not register or use the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Skunkworx Custom Cycle, D2004-0824 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2005) (finding that the issue of bad faith registration and use was moot once the panel found the respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). See also 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)).
Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and it is therefore unnecessary for this Panel to consider the third element in Policy ¶ 4(a).
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <eztaxreturns.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Héctor A. Manoff, Panelist
Dated: October 10, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page