American Airlines, Inc. v. kirk shafonsky / none
Claim Number: FA1310001525985
Complainant is American Airlines, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Leonard Searcy of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Missouri, USA. Respondent is kirk shafonsky / none (“Respondent”), represented by Konstantinos Zournas, Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <americanconnection.com>, 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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 22, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 24, 2013.
On October 22, 2013, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <americanconnection.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 October 25, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 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@americanconnection.com. Also on October 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 November 13, 2013.
A timely Additional Submission from Complainant was received and determined to be complete on November 15, 2013.
A timely Additional Submission from Respondent was received and determined to be complete on November 20, 2013.
On November 26, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
a. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
i. Complainant, American Airlines, Inc., is engaged in the business of air transportation and related goods and services and is one of the world’s largest airlines.
ii. Complainant is the owner of a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the AMERICAN CONNECTION mark (Reg. No. 2,199,596, registered October 27, 1998).
iii. The disputed domain name <americanconnection.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN CONNECTION mark because the domain name incorporates the entire mark merely eliminating the space between the terms of the mark and then adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
b. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
i. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
ii. No available evidence suggests that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
iii. Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name promotes travel services in direction competition to Complainant.
iv. Upon clicking the “British Airways” link featured on Respondent’s site, the user is redirected to a website with a well-known malware.
v. Respondent is using the <americanconnection.com> website to impersonate Complainant and to advertise links to Complainant’s direct competitors to trick users, who are redirected to a website with known malware.
c. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
i. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name, <americanconnection.com>, to promote Complainant’s direct competitors constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business.
ii. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring links that purport to resolve to various commercial websites of Complainant’s direct competitors.
iii. Respondent’s practice of redirecting users to a website with a well-known malware is prohibited by Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
iv. Respondent registered the <americanconnection.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the famous AMERICAN CONNECTION mark.
B. Respondent
a. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
i. The disputed domain name <americanconnection.com> consists of two generic words and as a term, it is a general descriptive term, meaning an American relationship, friend, or partnership.
b. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
i. Respondent acquired the disputed domain name <americanconnection.com> because it incorporated two common generic terms, which Respondent believed was valuable as a “relationship and/or friendship” domain name.
ii. Respondent’s intention was building a website for Canadians and Americans to connect with one another.
c. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
i. Respondent has not registered the domain name <americanconnection.com> primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant or to a competitor of Complainant.
ii. Respondent has not registered the domain name <americanconnection.com> in order to prevent the owner of the trademark AMERICAN CONNECTION from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.
iii. Respondent has not intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The domain name is merely parked with a parking provider and is using their name servers.
iv. Complainant has accused Respondent of engaging in a scheme to propagate malicious software but has provided no proof of how this is done.
v. Respondent denies that it had any knowledge of Complainant or its mark at the time it registered the domain.
d. Doctrine of Laches
i. Complainant’s inaction for the past twelve years is important since time considerations relative to the filing of UDRP proceedings have been held to impact the claims of rights and legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
e. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
i. Complainant’s filing of this Complaint twelve years after the registration of the disputed domain name, one year after trademark abandonment, and 1.5 years after the initial cease and desist email indicates that this Complaint can have no other purpose than to harass Respondent.
f. Respondent registered the <americanconnection.com> domain name on June 19, 2001.
C. Complainant’s Additional Submission
i. Respondent claims to be building a website for Canadians and Americans to connect with one another. In the 12 years since Respondent registered the disputed domain name, Respondent has not been able to bring such a website to fruition.
i. Respondent claims that the website is parked and that Respondent had no way of knowing what links were displayed. However, Respondent is ultimately responsible for the content of the website at the disputed domain name.
ii. The website ultimately damages Complainant by redirecting users to a website with a well-known malware. Respondent is ultimately responsible for the content on the website at the domain registered to him.
i. Complainant contacted Respondent approximately one and a half years ago with a single cease and desist email when Complainant became aware of Respondent’s domain name and website.
D. Respondent’s Additional Submission
a. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
i. Complainant’s abandoned trademark was once registered in the U.S. while Respondent resides in Canada.
ii. Complainant has not provided a single piece of evidence of revenue, operations, destinations, fleet, statistics, advertising revenue, or advertising samples or anything that could prove that the AMERICAN CONNECTION mark is still being used.
Complainant is American Airlines, Inc. of Fort Worth, TX, USA. Complainant is the owner of the USPTO registered mark AMERICAN CONNECTION which it claims to have been using at least as early as September 24, 1997 and which was registered on October 27, 1998. AMERICAN CONNECTION is one of the many marks owned by Complainant that Complainant uses primarily in connection with providing flight transportation and cargo services for the general public.
Respondent is listed as kirk shafonsky/none of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Scottsdale, AZ, USA. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 19, 2001. Respondent claims to have registered the disputed domain for the purpose of establishing a website that provided a meeting or dating site to facilitate a connection between Americans and Canadians. Respondent has yet to establish such a site and Respondent provided no information or evidence to support that claim.
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 contends that it is engaged in the business of air transportation and related goods and services and is one of the world’s largest airlines. Complainant argues that it is the owner of a trademark registration with the USPTO for the AMERICAN CONNECTION mark (Reg. No. 2,199,596, registered October 27, 1998). See Complainant’s Exhibit 3D. The Panel notes that while Respondent appears to reside within Canada, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require Complainant to register its mark in the country in which Respondent resides, so long as it establishes its rights in the mark in some jurisdiction. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates and it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the AMERICAN CONNECTION mark with the USPTO proves its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (concluding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s disputed domain name <americanconnection.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN CONNECTION mark because the domain name incorporates the entire mark merely eliminating the space between the terms of the mark and then adding the gTLD “.com.” In Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001), the panel found that <hannoverre.com> was identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names.” The Panel here finds that Respondent’s <americanconnection.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s AMERICAN CONNECTION mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
While Respondent contends that the <americanconnection.com> domain name is comprised of common and generic terms and as such cannot be found to be identical 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 mark and whether the disputed domain name is 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)).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that 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). The Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <americanconnection.com> domain name. Complainant contends that no available evidence suggests that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that the domain name at issue is not the nickname of Respondent or in any other way identified with or related to a legitimate interest of Respondent. Complainant argues that the WHOIS information demonstrates that “Kirk Shafonsky” is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Complainant’s Exhibit 2A. Complainant further asserts that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of Complainant’s marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating any of Complainant’s marks. In Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006), the panel concluded that respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and complainant had not authorized respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark. The Panel here finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <americanconnection.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent’s website at the <americanconnection.com> domain name promotes travel services in direct competition to Complainant. Complainant alleges that when an Internet user types the disputed domain name into a web browser, the user is directed to a website with links that are purported to be able to redirect the user to websites selling travel services. See Complainant’s Exhibit 2F. Complainant asserts that some of the websites include those of Complainant’s direct competitors such as “British Airways” and “Alaska Airlines.” Id. Complainant contends that when the user clicks on the link that is purported to be for “British Airways,” a webpage surfaces that displays another set of links with the title “Ads related to British Airways” at the top. Prior panels have held that a respondent’s use of a domain name to link to competing advertising is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a 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).”). The Panel here finds that Respondent is not using the <americanconnection.com> domain name in connection with a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the <americanconnection.com> website to impersonate Complainant and to advertise links to Complainant’s direct competitors in order to trick users, who are redirected to a website with known malware. Complainant argues that Respondent is using this confusingly similar domain name to mislead Internet users looking for Complainant’s travel services. In Kmart of Mich., Inc. v. Cone, FA 655014 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 25, 2006), the panel found the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as the complainant was not 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) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was nearly identical to the complainant’s website.
Respondent claims that it has not intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. Respondent argues that the links displayed on the disputed domain name were not selected by Respondent. Respondent contends that the domain name is merely parked with a parking provider and Respondent is using the parking provider’s name servers. Respondent asserts that it is because Complainant was in another country when it visited the website that the links were about airlines, and that Respondent had no way of knowing what links were displayed at different countries around the world. Respondent argues that “This site is simply parked and waiting for me to one day develop it into a dating website.” See Respondent’s Annex 9.
The Panel notes that Respondent does not deny the fact that links featuring competitors of the Complainant are present but instead seeks to shift the responsibility for them to a third party parking service. The Panel finds that Respondent is primarily and ultimately responsible for the content reflected on the site to which the domain name resolves whether Respondent is consciously aware of the presence of competitors links or has hired a third party who is directly involved in generating the links. The Panel finds that Respondent is passing itself off as Complainant, and therefore not using the disputed domain name for a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent argues that its intention was building a website for Canadians and Americans to connect with one another. Respondent elsewhere asserts that Complainant has not provided a single piece of evidence of revenue, operations, destinations, fleet, statistics, advertising revenue, or advertising samples or anything that could prove that the AMERICAN CONNECTION mark is still being used. Respondent apparently has misread such a requirement burdening only Complainants into the UDRP proceeding. Complainant has in fact provided evidence of a current valid trademark registration and proof of its mark’s usage on its websites. A mere allegation of nonuse by Respondent is insufficient to prove a mark has been abandoned. Ironically Respondent has not provided any like information to support its claimed intent of usage for <americanconnection.com> during the twelve years it’s had the domain name registered. A registrant must prove its legitimate rights and interests in a domain name affirmatively which it certainly cannot do by simply arguing that a mark owner has failed to provide evidence that is not required.
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name, <americanconnection.com>, to promote Complainant’s direct competitors constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business. Complainant alleges that when an Internet user types the disputed domain name into a web browser, the user is directed to a website with links that are purported to be able to redirect the user to websites selling travel services, such as “British Airways” and “Looking For British Airways?” See Complainant’s Exhibit 2F. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <americanconnection.com> domain name to provide competing hyperlinks disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (“Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parking website which provides click through revenue to Respondent and which displays links to travel-related products and services that directly compete with Complainant’s business. Accordingly, Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <americanconnection.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring links purportedly leading to various commercial websites of Complainant’s direct competitors. See Complainant’s Exhibit 2F. Complainant claims that some of the linked websites found at the website located at Respondent’s disputed domain name include those of Complainant’s direct competitors such as “British Airways” and “Alaska Airlines.” Id. Complainant contends that when the user clicks on the link that is purported to be for “British Airways,” a webpage surfaces that displays another set of links with the title “Ads related to British Airways” at the top. Id. The Panel notes that the content featured on Respondent’s website may cause confusion amongst Internet users attempting to visit Complainant’s website. In Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003), the panel held that “Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”). The Panel here finds that Respondent is using the confusingly similar <americanconnection.com> domain name to provide competing links for commercial gain, and therefore Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent claims that the website resolving from the <americanconnection.com> domain name is parked and that Respondent had no way of knowing what links were displayed there. In its Additional Submission, Complainant argues that Respondent is ultimately responsible for the content of the website at the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent was notified of the content on the website when Complainant sent a cease and desist email. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <americanconnection.com> domain name to host a parked website does not absolve Respondent of responsibility for content that reflects bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Invs. Ltd., D2007-0267 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2007) (finding that it makes no difference that a respondent contends that the advertisements in this case were “generated by the parking company,” the respondent still registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.).
Respondent argues that it has not registered the domain name <americanconnection.com> in order to prevent the owner of the trademark AMERICAN CONNECTION from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. Respondent alleges that it registered the domain name before Complainant’s service related to the AMERICAN CONNECTION mark was founded and now Complainant’s service has been abandoned but none of the facts provided support Respondent’s arguments. Complainant’s claimed date of first use and date of registration both predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent points to nothing coming directly from Complainant indicating that Complainant had decided to, is presently considering or even wishes to abandon its mark. Discontinuing or reducing the scope of services associated with a mark does not automatically constitute abandonment of the attendant mark.
Respondent contends that the <americanconnection.com> domain name is comprised entirely of common terms that have many meanings apart from use in Complainant’s AMERICAN CONNECTION mark. Moreover, Respondent contends that the registration and use of a domain name comprising such common terms is not necessarily done in bad faith. However, Respondent has provided no proof that it registered or has ever used the domain name in accord with the common meaning of the terms. Respondent has shown no use of the domain name except for its assertion of parking it, which has allowed others to generate links associated with Complainants competitors. Thus, Respondent’s usage, despite its limits, has reflected an association of the terms with the same meaning that the public associates the terms with Complainant’s mark.
Doctrine of Laches
The Panel notes that the doctrine of laches generally is not applied as a defense in UDRP proceedings. See Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem v. Alberta Hot Rods, D2002-0616 (WIPO Oct. 7, 2002) (“The remedy available in an Administrative Proceeding under the Policy is not equitable. Accordingly, the defence of laches has no application.”); see also Drown Corp. v. Premier Wine & Spirits, FA 616805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2006) (finding that the laches defense was inappropriate under the Policy and that the time frame within which the complainant brought the proceeding was of no consequential value); see also Disney Enters. Inc. v. Meyers, FA 697818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 26, 2006) (“Respondent’s efforts at arguing related equitable defenses such as estoppel and acquiescence are equally misplaced as these legal arguments are not contemplated by the Policy. Moreover, recognition of these arguments in accordance with Respondent’s desires requires the Panel to make a legal determination regarding the continuing validity of Complainant’s DISNEY mark. Such action is beyond the scope of the UDRP proceeding and if Respondent desires such an outcome it should avail itself of the proper judicial proceedings by which such a result might be accomplished.”).
The Panel agrees that a judicial venue is best for legal arguments directed at the continuing validity of a protected mark. However, the Panel recognizes that while the UDRP proceeding is nominally administrative in nature, the relief granted is effectively equitable and finds support for addressing the potential applicability of the equitable defense of laches regarding the viability of a domain name registration. Numerous panels have addressed laches specifically or relatedly by analyzing the effect of the passage of time on the parties respective claims. See Square Peg Interactive Inc. v. Naim Interactive Inc., FA 209572 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003) (“Although laches by itself is not a defense to a complaint brought under the Policy, Complainant's delay in seeking relief is relevant to a determination of whether Respondent has been able to build up legitimate rights in the Domain Name in the interim, and whether it is using the Domain name in bad faith.”); see also Meat & Livestock Comm’n v. Pearce, D2003-0645 (WIPO Oct. 27, 2003) (“Although laches is not a defence in itself under the Policy, the absence of any complaint over a long period of time in which domain names are in active use can suggest that such use does not give rise to a serious problem.”); see also The New York Times Co. v. Name Admin. Inc. (BVI), FA 1349045 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2010) (“laches is a valid defense in any domain dispute where the facts so warrant.”).
The facts here do not warrant the application of the laches doctrine nor any negative inference as a result of the time frame relative to Complainant’s filing of the UDRP. This is not a situation where the Complainant claimed to use its mark, but failed to register its rights, until after the Respondent built a substantial web presence and business through use of an identical domain name. This is not a situation where the Respondent, through a diligent investigation prior to registration of its domain name, would have been unable to find the previously registered mark of the Complainant. Respondent’s mere assertion of good intentions for the past twelve years and the unlimited future, while currently being responsible for the limited use of the domain name resolving to a website that benefits Complainant’s competitors, is sufficient for a finding of registration and use in bad faith despite the time gaps between the parties past interactions.
The Complainant has proven this element.
Because the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <americanconnection.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: December 10, 2013
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Because the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), and all of the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a), 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”).
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page