Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. James Carter a/k/a JCI
Claim Number: FA1307001509782
Complainant is Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is James Carter a/k/a JCI (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, <foxsports3d.tv>, <foxsports1.net>, <foxsportsone.net>, <foxsportsnews.net>, <foxsport1.com>, <foxsport1.net>, <foxsportone.com>, and <foxsportone.net>, registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC, and MELBOURNE IT, LTD. d/b/a INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 15, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 16, 2013.
On July 16, 2013, GODADDY.COM, LLC, confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, and <foxsports3d.tv> domain names are registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GODADDY.COM, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GODADDY.COM, LLC, 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 July 18, 2013, MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <foxsports1.net>, <foxsportsone.net>, <foxsportsnews.net>, <foxsport1.com>, <foxsport1.net>, <foxsportone.com>, and <foxsportone.net> domain names were registered with MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE has verified that Respondent is bound by the LLC, MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE 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 July 22, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 12, 2013 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@foxsports1.tv, postmaster@foxsportsone.tv, postmaster@foxsports2.tv, postmaster@foxsports2.net, postmaster@foxsportstwo.net, postmaster@foxsportstwo.tv, postmaster@foxsports3.tv, postmaster@foxsports3.net, postmaster@foxsportsthree.tv, postmaster@foxsportsthree.net, postmaster@foxsports3d.net, postmaster@foxsportnews.tv, postmaster@foxsportnews.net, postmaster@foxsport.tv, postmaster@foxsports3d.tv, postmaster@foxsports1.net, postmaster@foxsportsone.net, postmaster@foxsportsnews.net, postmaster@foxsport1.com, postmaster@foxsport1.net, postmaster@foxsportone.com, postmaster@foxsportone.net. Also on July 22, 2013, 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 August 22, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, <foxsports3d.tv>, <foxsports1.net>, <foxsportsone.net>, <foxsportsnews.net>, <foxsport1.com>, <foxsport1.net>, <foxsportone.com>, and <foxsportone.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FOX SPORTS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, <foxsports3d.tv>, <foxsports1.net>, <foxsportsone.net>, <foxsportsnews.net>, <foxsport1.com>, <foxsport1.net>, <foxsportone.com>, and <foxsportone.net> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, <foxsports3d.tv>, <foxsports1.net>, <foxsportsone.net>, <foxsportsnews.net>, <foxsport1.com>, <foxsport1.net>, <foxsportone.com>, and <foxsportone.net> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns trademark registrations for its FOX SPORTS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,932,252 registered October 31, 1995), used in connection with sports broadcasting since 1978.
Respondent registered the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, <foxsports3d.tv>, <foxsports1.net>, <foxsportsone.net>, <foxsportsnews.net>, <foxsport1.com>, <foxsport1.net>, <foxsportone.com>, and <foxsportone.net> domain names (the “disputed domain names”) on January 6, 2013. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to host pay-per-click websites, to offer them for sale, or to display “under construction” pages.
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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant’s trademark registrations for its FOX SPORTS mark satisfies Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), showing proof of its rights in the mark. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations [with the USPTO] establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FOX SPORTS mark, because each contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, and includes either a number or a descriptive term and a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) or the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.tv,” improperly associated as an abbreviation for “television.” The Panel finds that these changes do not distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”); see also World Wrestling Fed'n Entm't, Inc. v. Rapuano, DTV2001-0010 (WIPO May 23, 2001) (“The addition of the country code top level domain (ccTLD) designation <.tv> does not serve to distinguish [the disputed domain] names from the complainant’s marks since ‘.tv’ is a common Internet address identifier that is not specifically associated with Respondent.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Oxford Univ., FA 104132 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 19, 2002) (finding several domain names that added the numeral “7” or the term “seven” to the complainant’s AOL mark were confusingly similar to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FOX SPORTS mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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 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 is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names, and states that Respondent is not authorized to use any of the FOX marks. The WHOIS records identify “James Carter a/k/a JCI” as the registrant of the domain names. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). The Panel similarly finds that, absent Complainant’s authorization, and considering the contradictory WHOIS information, Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, and <foxsports3d.tv> domain names to host websites containing commercial pay-per-click links, some of which resolve to Complainant’s competitors’ websites, generating revenue for Respondent. Complainant submits evidence of links to various television programming advertisements, including sports television. Complainant claims that such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent is not using the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, and <foxsports3d.tv> domain names for 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 Royal Bank of Scotland Grp plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites).
Complainant submits evidence that Respondent is not making an active use of the <foxsports1.net>, <foxsportsone.net>, <foxsportsnews.net>, <foxsport1.com>, <foxsport1.net>, <foxsportone.com>, and <foxsportone.net> domain names, which display only an “under construction” message. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <foxsports1.net>, <foxsportsone.net>, <foxsportsnews.net>, <foxsport1.com>, <foxsport1.net>, <foxsportone.com>, and <foxsportone.net> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent attempts to sell the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, and <foxsports3d.tv> domain names and provides evidence of the screenshots of the resolving websites, displaying “Would you like to buy this domain?” at the top of each page. Previous panels have held that an attempt to sell a domain name demonstrates a respondent’s bad faith registration and use. See Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith”). The Panel similarly finds that Respondent registered and uses the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, and <foxsports3d.tv> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by using the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, and <foxsports3d.tv> domain names to host websites featuring sponsored-link advertisements for directly competing services. The Panel finds that the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, and <foxsports3d.tv> domain names are competing and were thus registered and are being used in bad faith by Respondent pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Mission KwaSizabantu v. Rost, D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (defining “competitor” as “one who acts in opposition to another and the context does not imply or demand any restricted meaning such as commercial or business competitor”); see also United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Savchenko, FA 1105728 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 12, 2007) (“Respondent currently utilizes the disputed domain name, <usaa-insurance.net>, to resolve to a website featuring links to third-party competitors of Complainant. The Panel finds such use establishes Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent uses the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, and <foxsports3d.tv> domain names to generate revenue from the resolving websites by hosting click-through links to competing entities’ websites. Previous panels have found that maintaining a website to divert Internet users and attract click-through revenue demonstrates bad faith registration and use. See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Warren, FA 204147 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (“Although Complainant’s principal website is <century21.com>, many Internet users are likely to use search engines to find Complainant’s website, only to be misled to Respondent’s website at the <century21realty.biz> domain name, which features links for competing real estate websites. Therefore, it is likely that Internet users seeking Complainant’s website, but who end up at Respondent’s website, will be confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website.”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, and <foxsports3d.tv> in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel finds that while Policy ¶ 4(b) provides typical bad faith uses of domain names, the examples are not exclusive, and the Panel finds that Respondent demonstrates bad faith registration and use of <foxsports1.net>, <foxsportsone.net>, <foxsportsnews.net>, <foxsport1.com>, <foxsport1.net>, <foxsportone.com>, and <foxsportone.net> domain names in other manners. See 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).
Respondent passively holds the <foxsports1.net>, <foxsportsone.net>, <foxsportsnews.net>, <foxsport1.com>, <foxsport1.net>, <foxsportone.com>, and <foxsportone.net> domain names, as each of the resolving websites lead to a page displaying the message “This site is under construction.” The Panel finds that this is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered each of the 22 disputed domain names at a time when Complainant’s FOX SPORTS 1 network was the subject of widespread media publicity. Complainant describes how, in January of 2013, Complainant’s plans to launch a new sports network under the name of “FOX SPORTS 1” were unveiled, and on the same day, Respondent registered each of the domain names. The Panel finds that this constitutes further evidence that Respondent registered the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Tech. Props., Inc. v. Hussain, FA 95411 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (“The Respondent took advantage of the public announcement that Tandy Corporation was changing its name to RadioShack by registering the domain names on the same day as a public announcement of a company’s name change. This is also evidence of bad faith.”).
Complainant also contends that Respondent must have had knowledge of Complainant’s FOX SPORTS mark at the time it registered each of the twenty-two domain names at issue, because Complainant had used its FOX marks for decades prior to the domain names’ registrations, Complainant’s marks are nationally and internationally famous, and Respondent opportunistically registered the domain names. Further, Complainant argues that Respondent registered domain names that varied by only one character or one non-distinctive term from Complainant’s FOX SPORTS mark. The Panel agrees and finds that by registering the disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark, Respondent demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <foxsports1.tv>, <foxsportsone.tv>, <foxsports2.tv>, <foxsports2.net>, <foxsportstwo.net>, <foxsportstwo.tv>, <foxsports3.tv>, <foxsports3.net>, <foxsportsthree.tv>, <foxsportsthree.net>, <foxsports3d.net>, <foxsportnews.tv>, <foxsportnews.net>, <foxsport.tv>, <foxsports3d.tv>, <foxsports1.net>, <foxsportsone.net>, <foxsportsnews.net>, <foxsport1.com>, <foxsport1.net>, <foxsportone.com>, and <foxsportone.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 1, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page