Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. PPA Media Services / Ryan G Foo
Claim Number: FA1211001470415
Complainant is Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is PPA Media Services / Ryan G Foo (“Respondent”), Chile.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ccheaptickets.com>, <ceaptickets.com>, <cgeaptickets.com>, <che4aptickets.com>, <cheacptickets.com>, <cheaotickets.com>, <cheapickets.com>, <cheapiickets.com>, <cheaptckets.com>, <cheaptickeets.com>, <cheaptickers.com>, <cheaptickerts.com>, <cheaptickes.com>, <cheapticketa.com>, <cheapticketrs.com>, <cheaptickiets.com>, <cheaptickits.com>, <cheaptickts.com>, <cheaptictkets.com>, <cheaptikcets.com>, <cheapttickets.com>, <cheaqptickets.com>, <cheatickets.com>, <crbitz.com>, <eorbitz.com>, <grbitz.com>, <horbitz.com>, <httporbitz.com>, <iorbitz.com>, <jorbitz.com>, <oebitz.com>, <orbatz.com>, <orbetz.com>, <orbietz.com>, <orbiltz.com>, <orbiotz.com>, <orbirtz.com>, <orbitd.com>, <orbitiz.com>, <orbitj.com>, <orbitrz.com>, <orbitze.com>, <orbitztvl.com>, <orbiytz.com>, <orbiz.net>, <orblitz.com>, <orboitz.com>, <orbtitz.com>, <orbtz.com>, <orbutz.com>, <orbvitz.com>, <ordbitz.com>, <orgbitz.com>, <ornitz.com>, <orvbitz.com>, <orzitz.com>, <otbitz.com>, <otrbitz.com>, <ozbitz.com>, <prbitz.com>, and <qorbitz.com>, registered with Internet.Bs Corp.
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.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 8, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 8, 2012.
On November 14, 2012, Internet.Bs Corp., confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ccheaptickets.com>, <ceaptickets.com>, <cgeaptickets.com>, <che4aptickets.com>, <cheacptickets.com>, <cheaotickets.com>, <cheapickets.com>, <cheapiickets.com>, <cheaptckets.com>, <cheaptickeets.com>, <cheaptickers.com>, <cheaptickerts.com>, <cheaptickes.com>, <cheapticketa.com>, <cheapticketrs.com>, <cheaptickiets.com>, <cheaptickits.com>, <cheaptickts.com>, <cheaptictkets.com>, <cheaptikcets.com>, <cheapttickets.com>, <cheaqptickets.com>, <cheatickets.com>, <crbitz.com>, <eorbitz.com>, <grbitz.com>, <horbitz.com>, <httporbitz.com>, <iorbitz.com>, <jorbitz.com>, <oebitz.com>, <orbatz.com>, <orbetz.com>, <orbietz.com>, <orbiltz.com>, <orbiotz.com>, <orbirtz.com>, <orbitd.com>, <orbitiz.com>, <orbitj.com>, <orbitrz.com>, <orbitze.com>, <orbitztvl.com>, <orbiytz.com>, <orbiz.net>, <orblitz.com>, <orboitz.com>, <orbtitz.com>, <orbtz.com>, <orbutz.com>, <orbvitz.com>, <ordbitz.com>, <orgbitz.com>, <ornitz.com>, <orvbitz.com>, <orzitz.com>, <otbitz.com>, <otrbitz.com>, <ozbitz.com>, <prbitz.com>, and <qorbitz.com> domain names are registered with Internet.Bs Corp., and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Internet.Bs Corp., has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet.Bs Corp., 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 November 21, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 11, 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@ccheaptickets.com, postmaster@ceaptickets.com, postmaster@cgeaptickets.com, postmaster@che4aptickets.com, postmaster@cheacptickets.com, postmaster@cheaotickets.com, postmaster@cheapickets.com, postmaster@cheapiickets.com, postmaster@cheaptckets.com, postmaster@cheaptickeets.com, postmaster@cheaptickers.com, postmaster@cheaptickerts.com, postmaster@cheaptickes.com, postmaster@cheapticketa.com, postmaster@cheapticketrs.com, postmaster@cheaptickiets.com, postmaster@cheaptickits.com, postmaster@cheaptickts.com, postmaster@cheaptictkets.com, postmaster@cheaptikcets.com, postmaster@cheapttickets.com, postmaster@cheaqptickets.com, postmaster@cheatickets.com, postmaster@crbitz.com, postmaster@eorbitz.com, postmaster@grbitz.com, postmaster@horbitz.com, postmaster@httporbitz.com, postmaster@iorbitz.com, postmaster@jorbitz.com, postmaster@oebitz.com, postmaster@orbatz.com, postmaster@orbetz.com, postmaster@orbietz.com, postmaster@orbiltz.com, postmaster@orbiotz.com, postmaster@orbirtz.com, postmaster@orbitd.com, postmaster@orbitiz.com, postmaster@orbitj.com, postmaster@orbitrz.com, postmaster@orbitze.com, postmaster@orbitztvl.com, postmaster@orbiytz.com, postmaster@orbiz.net, postmaster@orblitz.com, postmaster@orboitz.com, postmaster@orbtitz.com, postmaster@orbtz.com, postmaster@orbutz.com, postmaster@orbvitz.com, postmaster@ordbitz.com, postmaster@orgbitz.com, postmaster@ornitz.com, postmaster@orvbitz.com, postmaster@orzitz.com, postmaster@otbitz.com, postmaster@otrbitz.com, postmaster@ozbitz.com, postmaster@prbitz.com, and postmaster@qorbitz.com. Also on November 21, 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 December 26, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), 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 issues 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.
Complainant owns the ORBITZ mark, which it uses in connection with its business as an online travel company. Complainant offers travelers the technology to research and plan their travels on Complainant’s website, using a portfolio of brands that includes Orbitz, Cheap Tickets, ebookers, HotelClub, RatesToGo, the Away Network, and Orbitz for Business. Complainant’s business was formed in 1999 and its website launched in 2001. Complainant also owns the CHEAPTICKETS mark, which is a travel website that offers the ability to search for a range of travel services, including air travel, hotels, car rentals, cruises, and other similar products. Complainant founded the CHEAPTICKETS service in 1986, and the service currently operates as a discount ticket reseller. Complainant has spent $242 million in advertising in relation to its ORBITZ mark and CHEAPTICKETS mark and has increased its brand awareness to Internet consumers. Complainant owns rights in the ORBITZ mark through trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,799,051 filed April 18, 2000, registered December 23, 2003), and in the CHEAP TICKETS mark through USPTO registration (Reg. No. 2,021,749 filed June 2, 1995, registered December 10, 1996). Complainant also owns rights in the ORBITZ.COM mark through USPTO registration (Reg. No. 2,951,983 registered May 17, 2005) and the CHEAPTICKETS.COM mark through its USPTO registration (Reg. No. 2,665,841 registered December 24, 2002).
Respondent registered the <ccheaptickets.com>, <ceaptickets.com>, <cgeaptickets.com>, <che4aptickets.com>, <cheacptickets.com>, <cheaotickets.com>, <cheapickets.com>, <cheapiickets.com>, <cheaptckets.com>, <cheaptickeets.com>, <cheaptickers.com>, <cheaptickerts.com>, <cheaptickes.com>, <cheapticketa.com>, <cheapticketrs.com>, <cheaptickiets.com>, <cheaptickits.com>, <cheaptickts.com>, <cheaptictkets.com>, <cheaptikcets.com>, <cheapttickets.com>, <cheaqptickets.com>, <cheatickets.com>, <crbitz.com>, <eorbitz.com>, <grbitz.com>, <horbitz.com>, <httporbitz.com>, <iorbitz.com>, <jorbitz.com>, <oebitz.com>, <orbatz.com>, <orbetz.com>, <orbietz.com>, <orbiltz.com>, <orbiotz.com>, <orbirtz.com>, <orbitd.com>, <orbitiz.com>, <orbitj.com>, <orbitrz.com>, <orbitze.com>, <orbitztvl.com>, <orbiytz.com>, <orbiz.net>, <orblitz.com>, <orboitz.com>, <orbtitz.com>, <orbtz.com>, <orbutz.com>, <orbvitz.com>, <ordbitz.com>, <orgbitz.com>, <ornitz.com>, <orvbitz.com>, <orzitz.com>, <otbitz.com>, <otrbitz.com>, <ozbitz.com>, <prbitz.com>, and <qorbitz.com> domain names on the earliest date of May 4, 2000. Each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to one of Complainant’s ORBITZ or CHEAPTICKETS marks. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, due to its failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of any of the disputed domain names, and the fact that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names. Respondent links each of the domain names to a website that features generic links to third-party websites, some of which offer services in competition with Complainant’s business, for which Respondent receives fees in exchange for hosting the links. Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, as shown by its use of “click-through” hyperlinks that compete with Complainant and cause disruption to its business. Respondent’s domain name registrations are typosquatted versions of Complainant’s marks. Respondent has several of the domain names for sale to the public. Respondent has demonstrated repeated bad faith registration and use of domain names that are typosquatted.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
For reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the relief requested.
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.”).
Complainant argues that its USPTO trademark registrations for its ORBITZ mark (Reg. No. 2,799,051 filed April 18, 2000, registered December 23, 2003), and in the CHEAP TICKETS mark (Reg. No. 2,021,749 filed June 2, 1995, registered December 10, 1996), as well as the ORBITZ.COM mark (Reg. No. 2,951,983 registered May 17, 2005) and the CHEAPTICKETS.COM mark through its USPTO registration (Reg. No. 2,665,841 registered December 24, 2002) demonstrate its rights in the marks. The panel in Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) held that the complainant’s registrations with the USPTO established its rights in the mark pursuant to the Policy. The Panel concludes that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for its ORBITZ.COM and its CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks secures Complainant’s rights in the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel further finds that Complainant is not required to register its mark in the country of Respondent’s residence and operation pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See KCTS Television Inc. v. Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2001) (holding that it does not matter for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy whether the complainant’s mark is registered in a country other than that of the respondent’s place of business).
Complainant alleges that the <ccheaptickets.com>, <ceaptickets.com>, <cgeaptickets.com>, <che4aptickets.com>, <cheacptickets.com>, <cheaotickets.com>, <cheapickets.com>, <cheapiickets.com>, <cheaptckets.com>, <cheaptickeets.com>, <cheaptickers.com>, <cheaptickerts.com>, <cheaptickes.com>, <cheapticketa.com>, <cheapticketrs.com>, <cheaptickiets.com>, <cheaptickits.com>, <cheaptickts.com>, <cheaptictkets.com>, <cheaptikcets.com>, <cheapttickets.com>, <cheaqptickets.com>, and <cheatickets.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEAPTICKETS.COM mark. Complainant argues that the domain names differ from its mark by a single character, whether by adding an extra letter or digit, removing a letter, or juxtaposing two letters. The Panel finds that each of the domain names mentioned are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHEAPTICKETS.COM mark due to the single-letter variation in each domain name. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive).
Complainant claims that the <crbitz.com>, <eorbitz.com>, <grbitz.com>, <horbitz.com>, <httporbitz.com>, <iorbitz.com>, <jorbitz.com>, <oebitz.com>, <orbatz.com>, <orbetz.com>, <orbietz.com>, <orbiltz.com>, <orbiotz.com>, <orbirtz.com>, <orbitd.com>, <orbitiz.com>, <orbitj.com>, <orbitrz.com>, <orbitze.com>, <orbitztvl.com>, <orbiytz.com>, <orbiz.net>, <orblitz.com>, <orboitz.com>, <orbtitz.com>, <orbtz.com>, <orbutz.com>, <orbvitz.com>, <ordbitz.com>, <orgbitz.com>, <ornitz.com>, <orvbitz.com>, <orzitz.com>, <otbitz.com>, <otrbitz.com>, <ozbitz.com>, <prbitz.com>, and <qorbitz.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORBITZ.COM mark, in that each of the domain names uses the mark in its entirety and changes it within the respective domain name by one letter, by either removing a letter, adding a letter, or juxtaposing letters within the mark. The Panel concludes that the aforementioned domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORBITZ.COM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) due to the one-letter variation in each of the domain names. See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks).
Complainant has proven this element.
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 alleges that Respondent cannot claim to be commonly known by any of the disputed domain names due to the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names, each of which suggests that Respondent is known as an entity other than the domain name or the marks associated with Complainant. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information identifies “PPA Media Services / Ryan G Foo” as the registrant of each of the domain names. The panel in Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003), held that the respondent’s WHOIS information is one factor in determining whether the respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that because the WHOIS information does not reflect any of the disputed domain names, Respondent is not commonly known by the domains and therefore lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant sets forth the argument that Respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services at any of the disputed domain name, as evidenced by its use of the resolving website to host hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of whose services compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that using competing hyperlinks at the resolving webpage that compete with Complainant’s business cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See H-D Mich. Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that, because the “[r]espondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring a series of advertising links to various third-parties, many of whom offer products and services in direct competition with those offered under [the complainant’s] mark,” the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Complainant alleges in its Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) section that Respondent has typosquatted each of the disputed domain names by altering Complainant’s mark by one letter or digit. The Panel determines that Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) due to its typosquatting behavior. See 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).”).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant alleges that the <cheaptickes.com>, <cheaptictkets.com>, <iorbitz.com>, <orbitj.com>, <orbvitz.com>, and <otrbitz.com> domain names are listed for sale at an auction site. Complainant argues that Respondent’s attempt to sell the above listed domain names is evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) is apparent by its attempt to sell the <cheaptickes.com>, <cheaptictkets.com>, <iorbitz.com>, <orbitj.com>, <orbvitz.com>, and <otrbitz.com> domain names. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has demonstrated a history of registering domain names that are typosquatted from other entities’ marks. See AOL Inc. v. PPA Media Servs. a/k/a/ Foo, FA1432688 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2012); see also Strathmore Partners LP v. PPA Media Servs. / Foo, FA 1438428 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 21, 2012). The Panel determines that Respondent’s registration of typosquatted domain names in prior UDRP cases is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the current disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 1036129 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (holding prior UDRP proceedings were sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations).
Complainant argues that Respondent demonstrates bad faith registration and use by using all of the domain names at issue in a way that disrupts Complainant’s business, by hosting a resolving website that displays hyperlinks to various businesses, some of which offer competing services to those offered by Respondent and therefore divert potential customers away from Complainant’s website. The panel in Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007), stated that the respondent’s use of confusingly similar domain names to attract Internet consumers to its directory website, which contained commercial links to the complainant’s competitors represented the respondent’s bad faith registration and use. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) of each of the domain names at issue is apparent by Respondent’s use of the resolving website to host third-party competing hyperlinks in order to disrupt Complainant’s business.
Complainant makes the allegation that Respondent’s hosting of a “click-through” website that generates revenue for each misdirected Internet user is a clear example of Respondent’s bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to attract and mislead customers in order to make a profit. The Panel determines that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under ¶ 4(b)(iv) because it makes a commercial gain by attracting Internet users to its click-through site by using confusingly similar domain names to the Complainant’s marks. See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
Complainant sets forth the contention that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting by registering domain names that are mere misspellings of Complainant’s ORBITZ.COM and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks, and argues that typosquatting is evidence of bad faith registration. The Panel concludes that each of the domain names, by altering the Complainant’s mark by one letter, is a typosquatted version of Complainant’s ORBITZ.COM or CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks and finds that Respondent’s typosquatting demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2005) (“Respondent's registration of the domain names in dispute constitutes bad faith because the domain names are merely typosquatted versions of the [complainant’s] IMDB mark.).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <ccheaptickets.com>, <ceaptickets.com>, <cgeaptickets.com>, <che4aptickets.com>, <cheacptickets.com>, <cheaotickets.com>, <cheapickets.com>, <cheapiickets.com>, <cheaptckets.com>, <cheaptickeets.com>, <cheaptickers.com>, <cheaptickerts.com>, <cheaptickes.com>, <cheapticketa.com>, <cheapticketrs.com>, <cheaptickiets.com>, <cheaptickits.com>, <cheaptickts.com>, <cheaptictkets.com>, <cheaptikcets.com>, <cheapttickets.com>, <cheaqptickets.com>, <cheatickets.com>, <crbitz.com>, <eorbitz.com>, <grbitz.com>, <horbitz.com>, <httporbitz.com>, <iorbitz.com>, <jorbitz.com>, <oebitz.com>, <orbatz.com>, <orbetz.com>, <orbietz.com>, <orbiltz.com>, <orbiotz.com>, <orbirtz.com>, <orbitd.com>, <orbitiz.com>, <orbitj.com>, <orbitrz.com>, <orbitze.com>, <orbitztvl.com>, <orbiytz.com>, <orbiz.net>, <orblitz.com>, <orboitz.com>, <orbtitz.com>, <orbtz.com>, <orbutz.com>, <orbvitz.com>, <ordbitz.com>, <orgbitz.com>, <ornitz.com>, <orvbitz.com>, <orzitz.com>, <otbitz.com>, <otrbitz.com>, <ozbitz.com>, <prbitz.com>, and <qorbitz.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 27, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page