national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Getty Images (US), Inc. and its subsidiary, Istockphoto LP v. duanxiangwang

Claim Number: FA1308001514444

PARTIES

Complainant is Getty Images (US), Inc., and its subsidiary, Istockphoto LP (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is duanxiangwang (“Respondent”), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <istockphotp.com>, <istockphtoo.com>, <istokcphoto.com>, and <thinkstockphoto.com>, registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd.

 

PANEL

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.

 

The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 13, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 13, 2013. The Complaint was submitted in both English and Chinese.

 

On August 14, 2013, eName Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <istockphotp.com>, <istockphtoo.com>, <istokcphoto.com>, and <thinkstockphoto.com> domain names are registered with eName Technology Co.,Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  eName Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eName Technology Co., Ltd. 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 20, 2013, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 9, 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@istockphotp.com, postmaster@istockphtoo.com, postmaster@istokcphoto.com, postmaster@thinkstockphoto.com.  Also on August 20, 2013, the Chinese language 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 September 11, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

     Complainant made the following contentions.

     Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)

Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)

Respondent made the following domain name registrations:

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

 

 

1.    Complainant is a United States company conducting a business of providing a

searchable online database wherein Internet users may purchase and download

 digital photographs and downloadable and physical-copy photographs.

 

2. Complainant has registered the ISTOCKPHOTO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 3,440,599 filed on April 18, 2005; registered on June 3, 2008  and the THINKSTOCK mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,002,169 registered on September 27, 2005).

 

3. Respondent made the following domain name registrations :< istockphotp.com>, on February 1, 2010, <istockphtoo.com>, on April 13, 2008, <istokcphoto.com>, on June 12, 2008 and <thinkstockphoto.com>, on March 29, 2010.

      

 4. Respondent has used the <thinkstockphoto.com>, <istokcphoto.com>, and <istockphotp.com> domain names to host various competing hyperlink advertisements. Respondent has used the <istockphtoo.com> domain name to send Internet users to Complainant’s own website in an effort to exploit the parties’ affiliate agreement.

 

DISCUSSION

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.”).

 

 Language of the Proceedings

 

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.

 

Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants

 

In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants.  Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.”  The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.” There are two Complainants in this matter: Getty Images (US), Inc. and Istockphoto LP. Complainant explains that Getty purchased Istockphoto LP, creating a parent-subsidiary relationship.

 

Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other.  For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

“It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.”

 

In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names.  Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.  But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 5, 2001) (“This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.”).

 

As the Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, it will treat them all as a single entity in this proceeding. Accordingly, throughout this decision, the Complainants will be collectively referred to as “Complainant.” 

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark. Complainant states that it uses the ISTOCKPHOTO mark to provide a searchable online database wherein Internet users may purchase and download digital photographs. Complainant has registered the ISTOCKPHOTO mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,440,599 filed on April 18, 2005; registered on June 3, 2008). The Panel agrees that Complainant has established rights in the ISTOCKPHOTO mark through USPTO registration, regardless of where Respondent resides. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”). The Panel finds that these rights date back to April 18, 2005, the date on which Complainant filed its trademark application. See Thompson v. Zimmer, FA 190625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2003) (“As Complainant’s trademark application was subsequently approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the relevant date for showing ‘rights’ in the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) dates back to Complainant’s filing date.”). Complainant also claims that it uses the THINKSTOCK mark to provide downloadable and physical-copy photographs to consumers. Complainant notes that it has also registered the THINKSTOCK mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,002,169 registered on September 27, 2005). Just as with the ISTOCKPHOTO mark above, the Panel agrees that Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO illustrates Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, supra.

 

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ISTOCKPHOTO or THINKSTOCK  marks. Complainant asserts that all of the <istockphotp.com>, <istockphtoo.com>, and <istokcphoto.com> domain names add a gTLD to the ISTOCKPHOTO mark, and make minor modifications to Complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees that a gTLD is not relevant under the Policy for the purpose of the comparison between the domain names and the trademarks. See Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”).  In Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000), the panel found confusing similarity when the disputed domain name varied from the complainant’s mark by a single character. Likewise, in Delta Corporate Identity, Inc. v. SearchTerms, FA 590678 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2005), the panel found the mere transpositions of the letters of a mark to be insufficient to defeat confusing similarity. The Panel thus agrees that the <istockphotp.com>, <istockphtoo.com>, and <istokcphoto.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the ISTOCKPHOTO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant next argues that the <thinkstockphoto.com> domain name, in relation to the THINKSTOCK mark, sees the introduction of the generic term “photo” as well as a gTLD. The Panel agrees that the addition of a single generic term does not defeat the confusing similarity of this domain name. See Quixtar Inv., Inc. v. Smithberger, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that because the domain name <quixtar-sign-up.com> incorporates in its entirety the complainant’s distinctive mark, QUIXTAR, the domain name is confusingly similar); see also Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2005) (finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark). The Panel again finds that a gTLD is not relevant under the Policy for this purpose. See Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., supra. The Panel thus finds that the <thinkstockphoto.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the THINKSTOCK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names 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.”).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:

 

(a)  Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s ISTOCKPHOTO and THINKSTOCK trademarks and to use them in its domain names, making only slight spelling alterations in three of the domain names and adding a generic word in the case of the fourth, thus enhancing the confusing similarity between the domain names and the trademarks;

 

(b)  Respondent has then used the disputed domain names respectively to host various competing hyperlink advertisements and to send Internet users to Complainant’s own website;

 

(c)   Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;

 

(d) Complainant states that Respondent has not been commonly known by these domain names. Complainant claims that it has not otherwise licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in domain names. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information for all of these domain names indicates that “duanxiangwang” is the registrant. The Panel declines to find that Respondent is commonly known by any of these domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) in light of the absence of evidence showing otherwise. See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute);

 

(e) Complainant next argues that Respondent uses the <thinkstockphoto.com>, <istokcphoto.com>, and <istockphotp.com> domain names to host various competing hyperlink advertisements. The Panel acknowledges that these domain names do indeed resolve to websites that provide hyperlinks to various goods relating to stock photography. See Complainant’s Ex. H. The Panel agrees that the use of these disputed domain names for purposes of hosting competing hyperlinks is neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Savchenko, FA 1105728 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 12, 2007) (“The disputed domain name, <usaa-insurance.net>, currently resolves to a website displaying Complainant’s marks and contains links to Complainant’s competitors.  The Panel finds this to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”);

 

(f) Complainant next claims that Respondent uses the <istockphtoo.com> domain name to send Internet users to Complainant’s own website in an effort to exploit the parties’ affiliate agreement. The Panel notes that the <istockphtoo.com> domain name does indeed appear to resolve to Complainant’s website, with coding suggesting that the domain name reroutes Internet users through Complainant’s affiliate agreement. See Complainant’s Ex. H. The Panel further notes the content of Complainant’s affiliate agreement presented as Complainant’s Exhibit M. In Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002), the panel determined that the respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to exploit an affiliate agreement between the parties was grounds for refusing to find Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent lacks Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) rights and legitimate interests in the <istockphtoo.com> domain name.

 

All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

 

Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain

names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.

 

First, Complainant submits that Respondent has placed “some” of the domain names for sale. The Panel notes that Complainant provides evidence that the <thinkstockphoto.com>, <istokcphoto.com>, and <istockphtoo.com> domain names are being placed for sale. See Complainant’s Ex. I. In Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003), the panel found a general offer to sell a disputed domain name to be sufficient evidence of the respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). The Panel here likewise agrees that Respondent’s offer to sell the <thinkstockphoto.com>, <istokcphoto.com>, and <istockphtoo.com> domain names evidences Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) bad faith.

 

Secondly, Complainant contends that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration through the presence of multiple infringing domain names in this single proceeding. In Yahoo! Inc. v. Deiana, FA 339579 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2004), the panel agreed that a respondent’s holding of multiple confusingly similar domain names in relation to complainant’s marks was enough evidence to find Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) bad faith. Likewise, the Panel here finds that Respondent’s bad faith may be traced to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

Thirdly, Complainant argues that Respondent’s decision to host competing hyperlinks through the <thinkstockphoto.com>, <istokcphoto.com>, and <istockphotp.com> domain names illustrates an attempt to disrupt Complainant’s business. The Panel agrees that each of the domain names promotes hyperlinks to the same types of goods promoted and sold under Complainant’s THINKSTOCK and ISTOCKPHOTO marks. See Complainant’s Ex. H. In Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Smith, FA 1195696 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2008), the panel found the presence of competing hyperlinks to satisfy the Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) requirements for finding bad faith through commercial disruption. The Panel here finds that the competing hyperlinks viewable through the <thinkstockphoto.com>, <istokcphoto.com>, and <istockphotp.com> domain names’ resolving websites evidences Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) bad faith.

 

Fourthly, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the <thinkstockphoto.com>, <istokcphoto.com>, and <istockphotp.com> domain names to host various competing hyperlink advertisements in an attempt to confuse Internet users into associating these competing offers with Complainant and its marks. The Panel again notes the competing content on these domain names’ resolving websites. See Complainant’s Ex. H. Previous panels have found Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith in the appropriation of a confusingly similar domain name for the purpose of sending Internet users to a complainant’s competitors. See, e.g., 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). The Panel here likewise concludes that Respondent registered and used the <thinkstockphoto.com>, <istokcphoto.com>, and <istockphotp.com> domain names in a Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith attempt to capitalize on the likelihood that Internet users will confuse Complainant as the source or origin of the competing hyperlinks.

 

Fifthly, Complainant also suggests that Respondent uses the <istockphtoo.com> domain name to send Internet users to Complainant’s own website through an exploitation of Complainant’s affiliate agreement. The Panel again notes both the affiliate agreement, as well as Respondent’s decision to reroute the <istockphtoo.com> domain name to Complainant’s website. See Complainant’s Exs. H, M. In Cricket Commc’ns, Inc. v. Oliver, FA 954005 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007), the panel found respondent’s exploitation of an affiliate agreement between the parties to constitute Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. The Panel here agrees that Respondent’s actions regarding use of the <istockphtoo.com> domain name suggest a Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith attempt to exploit an agreement between the parties.

 

Sixthly, Complainant suggests that Respondent’s typosquatting behavior is in itself evidence of bad faith. The Panel notes that the <istockphotp.com>, <istockphtoo.com>, and <istokcphoto.com> domain names are the only at-issue domain names to fall within the realm of possible typosquatting. The <istockphotp.com> domain name embodies a more classic form of typosquatting—the letter “p” replaces the letter “o” (which is adjacent on a QWERTY keyboard). See, e.g., Bank of Am. Corp. v. Tak Ume domains for sale, FA 154528 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2003) (holding that the practice of typosquatting “diverts Internet users who misspell Complainant’s mark to a website apparently owned by Respondent for Respondent’s commercial gain.  ‘Typosquatting’ has been recognized as evidencing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). The Panel also chooses to recognize that the <istockphtoo.com> and <istokcphoto.com> domain names are made up of simple transpositions of letters within the ISTOCKPHOTO mark. As the Panel believes all of these domain names are typosquatted from the ISTOCKPHOTO mark, the Panel agrees that such conduct suggests Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith registration. See K.R. USA, INC. v. SO SO DOMAINS, FA 180624 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <philadelphiaenquirer.com> and <tallahassedemocrat.com> domain names capitalized on the typographical error of Internet users seeking the complainant's THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER and TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT marks, evincing typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Seventhly, Complainant argues that Respondent surely had actual knowledge of Complainant’s interest in these trademarks prior to registering the domain names, based upon the affiliate agreement between the parties. The Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant's mark, Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark and Complainant's rights. Thus, the Panel holds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration “).

 

Eighthly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using the STOCKPHOTO and THINKSTOCK marks and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using them, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

 

Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <istockphotp.com>, <istockphtoo.com>, <istokcphoto.com>, and <thinkstockphoto.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC

Panelist

Dated:  September 16, 2013

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page