Michelin North America, Inc. v. steve innis
Claim Number: FA1307001511296
Complainant is Michelin North America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Neil M. Batavia of Dority & Manning, Attorneys at Law, P.A., South Carolina, USA. Respondent is steve innis (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Ho Hyun Nahm as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 23, 2013. The National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 25, 2013.
On July 24, 2013, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> 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 25, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 14, 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@bibspace.com, postmaster@bibspace.net, postmaster@bibspace.org. Also on July 25, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 12, 2013.
A timely Additional Submission was received from Complainant and determined to be complete on August 16, 2013.
A timely Additional Submission was received from Respondent and determined to be complete on August 20, 2013.
On August 22, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Ho Hyun Nahm 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Complainant, Michelin North America, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets tires for several vehicle industries, and is involved in vehicle racing and rallies.
2. Complainant and related entities have a business presence in more than 170 countries worldwide, supply a range of thousands of products, and produce millions of tires yearly.
3. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
a. Complainant holds registration for a family of BIB marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for a variety of tire-related goods and services, including the following marks:
i. BIB (Reg. No. 1,078,048, registered November 22, 1977);
ii. MEGAXBIB (Reg. No. 2,277,475, registered September 14, 1999);
iii. BIB MOUSSE (Reg. No. 287,570, registered October 19, 1999);
iv. AGRIBIB (Reg. No. 2,613,822, registered September 3, 2002);
v. MACHXBIB (Reg. No. 2,812,808, registered February 10, 2004);
vi. CARBO X BIB (Reg. No. 2,863,177, registered July 13, 2004);
vii. XEOBIB (Reg. No. 3,275,652, registered August 7, 2007);
viii. AXIOBIB (Reg. No. 3,280,506, registered August 14, 2007);
ix. MULTIBIB (Reg. No. 3,303,063, registered October 2, 2007);
x. OMNIBIB (Reg. No. 3,782,861, registered April 27, 2010);
xi. SPRAYBIB (Reg. No. 3,926,152, registered March 1, 2011);
xii. BIBSTEEL (Reg. No. 3,982,027, registered June 21, 2011);
xiii. CEREXBIB (Reg. No. 4,012,844, registered August 16, 2011); and
xiv. YIELDBIB (Reg. No. 4,122,797, registered April 3, 2012).
See Complainant’s Annex B.
b. Respondent’s <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s family of BIB trademarks.
4. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
a. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
b. Respondent is not commonly known by the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, or <bibspace.org> domain name as evidenced by the WHOIS information.
c. Respondent has not connected the disputed domain names to active commercial websites, and each resolving website has remained inactive since the time of registration. See Complainant’s Annex A. Each domain appears to have been parked by the registrar, GoDaddy.com, LLC, and each resolving website appears to display GoDaddy’s default parked page which includes a small number of hyperlinks.
5. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
a. While each of the circumstances listed under Policy ¶ 4(b), if proven, evidences bad faith use and registration of a domain name, the totality of circumstances as a whole can also be used to support findings of bad faith. The circumstances here, taken individually or in combination with others, evidence bad faith registration and use.
b. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the family of BIB trademarks.
i. Complainant and its trademarks are well known and associated with tires, travel, restaurants, and resort locations throughout the world. For example, Complainant’s annual Michelin Guide for hotels and restaurants is well known and commonly associated with Complainant.
ii. Additionally, both the Respondent and Complainant are U.S. entities and Complainant’s marks were first registered with the USPTO several decades ago.
c. Respondent currently inactively holds the disputed <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names, providing evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
1. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
a. None of Respondent’s <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, or <bibspace.org> domain names is confusingly similar to any of Complainant’s marks.
b. On the Internet, which is today’s main source of consumer information and advertising, only one of Complainant’s trademarks can even be found listed as a URL, hence no confusion can exist.
i. The one exception, <bib.com>, is owned by an entity other than Complainant and is an acronym for the business name with which it is affiliated- Background Investigation Bureau.
c. In addition to the word “bib” being commonly used as a noun and a verb in the English language, there are over 80 acronyms which utilize the letters “BIB,” including Respondent’s use in the disputed domain names.
2. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
a. Respondent has developed a business plan which includes the development and use of the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names. See Respondent’s Exhibit B. Respondent’s use of these domains is therefore not inactive, but rather demonstrates Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests in the domains.
i. The disputed domain names are foundational to marketing the business plan for Respondent’s contemplated Breakfast-In-Bed business to investors and lenders.
ii. Respondent’s contemplated Breakfast-in-Bed business serves as a restaurant delivery company which specializes in serving high quality restaurant food prepared by the customer’s choice of restaurants and delivered to the customer’s space.
b. Respondent has been asked several times in the early days of this startup company “so how is bibspace coming?” While Respondent does not own the trademark rights to BIBSPACE it has, on occasion, been recognized by that moniker.
c. Respondent is incapable of misleadingly diverting Complainant’s customers since Complainant itself does not have any web presence from which to divert.
d. Even if Complainant were to have a web presence at domain names reflecting any or all of its trademarks, there is no similarity between Respondent’s contemplated Breakfast-in-Bed restaurant delivery business and Complainant’s business, which involves tires and travel guides.
3. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
a. Respondent has not acted in bad faith in any regard.
b. Respondent acknowledges that for the purposes of elevating the perceived value of its contemplated Breakfast-in-Bed business to lenders and investors, Respondent posted “an asset,” the <bibspace.com> domain name, for sale.
i. After being contacted by Complainant’s legal team Respondent removed the listing, against Respondent’s best interests, under the threat of legal action.
c. The <bibspace.com> domain remained parked on a generic GoDaddy web parking page since Respondent removed the listing. Respondent has no control over content of the GoDaddy parking website. The domain will remain parked at the GoDaddy parking website until the web development stage of Respondent’s business plan is executed.
d. Policy ¶ 4(b)
i. Respondent has never bought or sold a website. Respondent registered the disputed domains in good faith, at its own expense, for its own business purposes.
ii. Respondent did not register the domain names for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.
iii. Respondent has not intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites or of a product or service on Respondent’s websites.
4. Complainant is engaging in reverse domain name hijacking by initiating this proceeding.
5. Respondent registered the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names on January 1, 2013.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant’s Additional Submission
1. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
a. Although Respondent’s Response cites other usages of the term “bib” on the Internet, the fact remains that BIB is a federally registered trademark of Complainant and that Respondent’s <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
2. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
a. Despite Respondent’s claims that the disputed domain names “had prior use in business plans,” such claims are not supported by any factual evidence.
3. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
a. Respondent acknowledges in its Response that at least one of the disputed domain names, <bibspace.com>, was previously for sale. From the factual evidence, it appears that Respondent registered the disputed domain names for the purpose of selling them for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs, demonstrating bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
b. Since the filing of the UDRP Complaint by Complainant, Respondent has attempted to sell the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net> and <bibspace.org> domains names to Complainant for $3050 USD, an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs, thereby further demonstrating bad faith use under Policy ¶4(b)(i). See Complainant’s Additional Submission Annex E.
c. Respondent claims that Complainant’s UDRP filings “were not unexpected,” implying that Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in advance of the Complaint being filed. See Id.
4. Respondent’s claim of reverse domain name hijacking is without merit.
a. The facts of the present action indicate that Respondent has registered confusingly similar domain names to Complainant’s family of BIB trademarks and has done so without any rights or legitimate interests in such domain names and with bad faith.
Respondent’s Additional Submission
1. Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)
a. Complainant’s lawyer is rebuking Respondent for offering to dispose of the entire matter for reimbursement of Respondent’s costs to date. Respondent did not wish to engage further counsel in order to answer the Complaint so instead Respondent suggested the matter could be disposed of for reimbursement of Respondent’s then-incurred costs.
2. Inactive Use
a. To say that a domain must resolve to a completed website in order for it to not have been registered in bad faith is disingenuous, at best. The Panel should not take these domains away from a nascent business because it needed to take the time necessary to build its websites as described in Respondent’s business plan.
3. Reverse Domain Hijacking
a. Respondent reiterates that its claim of reverse domain name hijacking has merit. The facts prove Respondent registered the domain names in good faith and indeed is using them in legitimate business. Complainant has purposefully mischaracterized the Respondent’s actions and activities once again in an attempt to demonize the Respondent and influence Panel’s decision.
The Panel finds that Complainant, Michelin North America, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets tires for several vehicle industries, and is involved in vehicle racing and rallies. Complainant and related entities have a business presence in more than 170 countries worldwide, supply a range of thousands of products, and produce millions of tires yearly. Complainant holds registration for a family of BIB marks with the USPTO for a variety of tire-related goods and services, including the mark BIB (Reg. No. 1,078,048, registered November 22, 1977).
The disputed domain names were registered on January 1, 2013.
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, Michelin North America, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets tires for several vehicle industries, and is involved in vehicle racing and rallies. Complainant claims rights to a family of BIB marks based on its registrations with the USPTO, including the BIB mark (Reg. No. 1,078,048, registered November 22, 1977) registered in International Class 35 for rendering technical assistance in connection with the establishment and/or operation of retail tire outlets. The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the BIB mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant’s rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Complainant urges that Respondent’s <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BIB trademark within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant notes that “Respondent has simply appended the generic word ‘space’ to Complainant’s registered trademark,” arguing that “the mere addition of generic or descriptive words to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).” The Panel notes that each disputed domain name also affixes a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Previous panels have considered neither the addition of a generic word nor the affixation of a gTLD sufficiently distinctive to overcome a finding of confusing similarity. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also 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.”). In light of the foregoing analysis, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BIB mark within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
While Respondent contends that the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names comprised of common and generic terms and as such cannot be found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, 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 marks and whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Precious Puppies of Florida, Inc. v. kc, FA 1028247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 10, 2007) (examining Respondent’s generic terms arguments only under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and not under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Vitello v. Castello, FA 159460 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s disputed domain name was identical to complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), but later determining the issue of whether the disputed domain name was comprised of generic terms under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii)).
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 contends that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. First, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, or <bibspace.org> domain name, as evidenced by the WHOIS information. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information lists Respondent as “steve innis,” which does not seem to suggest a connection to the disputed domain names on its face. Past panels have found that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) when the relevant WHOIS information suggests no such connection and the respondent has failed to provide evidence demonstrating that it is in fact commonly known by the domain. 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 determines that Respondent has failed to provide a sufficient degree of evidence to overcome Complainant’s prima facie case, and thus the Panel holds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, or <bibspace.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant next asserts that Respondent has not connected the disputed domain names to active commercial websites, and each resolving website has remained inactive since the time of registration. See Complainant’s Annex A. In Complainant’s Additional Submission, Complainant contends that despite Respondent’s claims that the disputed domain names “had prior use in business plans,” such claims are not supported by any factual evidence. The Panel notes that each domain appears to have been parked by the registrar, GoDaddy.com, LLC, and each resolving website appears to display GoDaddy’s default parked page which includes a small number of hyperlinks. The Panel agrees with Complainant’s characterization of the websites’ content, and thus the Panel finds that Respondent’s inactive use of the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names since registration cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use 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).
Complainant’s Additional Submission notes that Respondent acknowledges in its Response that at least one of the disputed domain names, <bibspace.com>, was previously for sale. Complainant believes that from the factual evidence, it appears that Respondent registered all of the disputed domain names for the purpose of selling them for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs, demonstrating bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). Complainant also alleges that since the filing of its UDRP Complaint, Respondent has attempted to sell the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net> and <bibspace.org> domains names to Complainant for $3050 USD, an amount in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs. See Complainant’s Additional Submission Annex E. Complainant argues that this further demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(i). The Panel finds that the evidence suggests Respondent registered any or all of the disputed domain names primarily for that purpose, and thus the Panel finds registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(i). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that the respondent registered and was using the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where it offered it for sale for far more than its estimated out-of-pocket costs it incurred in initially registering the disputed domain name).
Complainant notes that while each of the circumstances listed under Policy ¶ 4(b), if proven, evidences bad faith use and registration of a domain name, the totality of circumstances as a whole can also be used to support findings of bad faith. The Panel agrees, finding that Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(i)-(iv) are intended to be an illustrative list of bad faith circumstances rather than an exhaustive one. See Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v. Powell, D2000-0038 (WIPO Mar. 17, 2000) (“[J]ust because Respondent’s conduct does not fall within the ‘particular’ circumstances set out in [¶ 4(b)] of the Policy, is not conclusive that the [<euro-tunnel.com>] domain name in issue was registered in and is being used in bad faith.”). Complainant argues that the circumstances here, taken individually or in combination with others, evidence bad faith registration and use.
Complainant further alleges that Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names, providing evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel determines that Respondent’s holding of the disputed domains can in fact be considered inactive, and the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use (or, more accurately, lack thereof) of the disputed domain names illustrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); see also 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 alleges that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the family of BIB trademarks at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain names. According to Complainant, Complainant and its trademarks are well known and associated with tires, travel, restaurants, and resort locations throughout the world. For example, Complainant claims that its annual Michelin Guide for hotels and restaurants is well known and commonly associated with Complainant. In its Additional Submission, Complainant alleges that Respondent claimed that Complainant’s UDRP filings “were not unexpected,” implying that Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in advance of the Complaint being filed. Additionally, Complainant notes that both Respondent and Complainant are U.S. entities and Complainant’s marks were first registered with the USPTO several decades ago. Complainant posits that its registrations with USPTO establish Respondent’s constructive knowledge of Complainant and its rights. While most panels have concluded that constructive notice is not sufficient to support a bad faith finding, the Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant's marks and Respondent’s registration of confusingly similar domain names thereto, Respondent had actual knowledge of the marks and Complainant's rights in them. Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent registered the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat'l Patent Servs. Inc. v. Bean, FA 1071869 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 1, 2007) ("[C]onstructive notice does not support a finding of bad faith registration."); see also Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Complainant argues that Respondent’s claim of reverse domain name hijacking is without merit. Complainant’s Additional Submission urges that the facts of the present action indicate that Respondent has registered confusingly similar domain names to Complainant’s family of BIB trademarks and has done so without any rights or legitimate interests in such domain names and with bad faith. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), or any or all of the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a), and thus the Panel finds that Complainant has not engaged in reverse domain name hijacking. See World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc. v. Ringside Collectibles, D2000-1306 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (“Because Complainant has satisfied [all of] the elements of the Policy, Respondent’s allegation of reverse domain name hijacking must fail”); see also Gallup, Inc. v. PC+s.p.r.l., FA 190461 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 2, 2003) (finding no reverse domain name hijacking where complainant prevailed on the “identical/confusingly similar” prong of the Policy).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bibspace.com>, <bibspace.net>, and <bibspace.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Panelist
Dated: August 28, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page