SWH Mimi’s Café, LLC v. Moran Poborsky
Claim Number: FA1409001579791
Complainant is SWH Mimi’s Café, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Moran Poborsky (“Respondent”), Israel.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mimiscafecoupons.net>, registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 15, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 15, 2014.
On September 16, 2014, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <mimiscafecoupons.net> domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc 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 September 17, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 7, 2014 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@mimiscafecoupons.net. Also on September 17, 2014, 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 October 14, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant owns and operates over 100 restaurants throughout the United States under the trademark MIMI’S CAFE®. The Mimi’s Cafe trademark was first used in 1978 and has been continuously used for restaurant services since that time, a period of over thirty (35) years. The earliest registration is Registration No. 1,306,490 for the mark MIMI’S CAFE covering “coffeeshop services” which registered on November 20, 1984 and is still valid and subsisting.
Complainant has invested substantial effort and expense to develop goodwill in the MIMI’S CAFE marks and to cause consumers throughout the United States to recognize the MIMI’S CAFE marks as distinctly and exclusively designating high quality food products and services associated with the Complainant. More than 35 years of promotional efforts have made the MIMI’S CAFE marks famous and distinctive. Last month, USA Today reported that Mimi’s Cafe was selected as America’s Favorite Breakfast restaurant in a poll conducted by Market Force.
Complainant advertises its restaurant services on its official website, www.mimiscafe.com. This domain name has been registered with Network Solutions since March of 1997.
ICANN Rule 3(b)(viii).
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix).
A. CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR DOMAIN NAME (ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(1) and ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(i)):
The domain name <mimiscafecoupons.net> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous MIMI’S CAFE mark, which was registered as a trademark long before Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 6, 2012. In fact, Complainant’s had been used for more than 30 years prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
Respondent’s domain name contains Complainant’s MIMI’S CAFE mark combined with the generic term “coupons,” along with the common generic TLD “.net.” These changes are not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the MIMI’S CAFÉ mark. See, e.g., Noodle Time, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1451411 (Nat. Arb. Forum, August 7, 2012) (finding <benihana-coupons.net> confusingly similar to the BENIHANA mark); Bath & Body Works Brand Management, Inc. v. Jeff Lander, FA 1414376 (Nat. Arb. Forum, December 16, 2011)(finding <bathandbodyworkscoupons.com> confusingly similar to the BATH & BODY WORKS mark with the addition of the generic term “coupons”).
It is also important to note that the inclusion of the top level domain name, “.net” has no effect on the determination of whether the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. The mere addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Fossil, Inc. v. Amorvine Global Ltd., FA954070 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 17, 2007) and Abbott Laboratories v. Whois Service c/o Belize Domain WHOIS Service, FA0903001254682 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2009) (“the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark”).
Accordingly, the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MIMI’S CAFÉ mark under Policy 4(a)(i).
B. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN DOMAIN NAME (ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2) and ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii):
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant’s MIMI’S CAFE mark, nor has Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
WHOIS identifies Respondent as Moran Poborsky. Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant’s MIMI’S CAFE mark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way. Respondent is not licensed by Complainant to use Complainant’s MIMI’S CAFE mark. Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant’s goods and services. See Fossil, Inc. v. Juan Cabral, FA1469662 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Dec. 18, 2012) (finding that where WHOIS identifies a person or entity with no affiliation with Fossil that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name according to Policy ¶4(c)(ii)); Fossil, Inc. v. cheng gong, FA 1458182 (Nat. Arb. Forum, October 2, 2012) (finding that Respondent’s lack of affiliation with Fossil showed that he was not commonly known by the disputed domain name and thus lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name); Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where there was nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent was commonly known by the domain name); and Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (finding that the WHOIS information, and its failure to imply that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, is a factor in determining that Policy ¶4(c)(ii) does not apply).
The disputed domain name goes to a site that contains significant information about Complainant and its MIMI’S CAFE restaurants, including the use of photos of its restaurants, links to Complainant’s official Mimi’s Cafe website, its menus, and other information that makes it appear in all respects to be an official site for Complainant. However, when the user clicks on the link to obtain a coupon, the user goes to a site where the user must download some software to obtain the coupons called “Coupon Xplorer.” Presumably Respondent receives some revenue each time a user clicks through to the Coupon Xplorer site. Most alarming is the fact that the Coupon Xplorer product is a documented malware product which hijacks the user’s browser and can infect one’s computer.
This exact conduct has previously been found to be in violation of the Policy. In the case of Retail Royalty Company and AEO Management Co. v. Private Whois, FA 1433844 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 26, 2012), the Respondent was using the domain name <aecoupons.net> in connection with a site that purported to offer coupons for the complainant’s products but the user was required to clink on a link to access the coupons which downloaded software onto the user’s computers. This was found to not be 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 also Google Inc. v. Gridasov, FA 474816 (Nat. Arb. Forum, July 5, 2005)(finding that the use of the disputed domain name that attempts to download malicious computer software is harmful to the complainant as the users may assume the Complainant has some affiliation with the harmful content); Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2009)(finding that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website that attempts to download computer viruses failed to demonstrate any semblance of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)).
As noted, Respondent is using photos of Complainant’s restaurants, its menus and links to its official site which may initially suggest to an unsuspecting computer user that the site is associated with Complainant when it is not. This has been found to establish a lack of rights under the Policy in prior cases. See Fossil Group, Inc. v. Olivia Lim, FA1514644 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Sept. 20, 2013)(finding the use of the Complainant’s images is an attempt to pass off Respondent off as Complainant and illustrates a lack of Policy ¶4(a)(ii) rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Attempting to pass oneself off as a trademark holder is not a legitimate use. See Fossil, Inc. v. Juan Cabral FA1469662 (Nat. Arb. Forum, December 29, 2012) and Fossil, Inc. v. cheng gong, FA 1458182 (Nat. Arb. Forum, October 2, 2012)(finding that Respondent’s efforts to pass itself off as Complainant showed a lack of rights and legitimate interests); Microsoft Corp. v. lijiuliang, FA0912001300266 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 11, 2010)( “Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant by imitating Complainant’s official website … is 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)”); Crow v. LOVEARTH.net, FA203208 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 28, 2003) (“It is neither a bona fide offerings [sic] of goods or services, nor an example of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) & (iii) when the holder of a domain name, confusingly similar to a registered mark, attempts to profit by passing itself off as Complainant....”); and Mulberry Company (Design) Ltd. v. ronld chen AKA chen, ronld, D2010-1718 (WIPO Nov. 26, 2010)(awarding transfer of <mulberry-bags-store.com> and noting: “[The] disputed domain names are being used by the Respondent for websites which falsely appear to be affiliated, connected or associated with the Complainant. In this Panel’s view, such use and purpose of the disputed domain names without the authorization of the trade mark owner shows that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names or a bona fide offering of goods and services.”).
For the above reasons, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <mimiscafecoupons.net> domain name.
C. REGISTRATION AND USE IN BAD FAITH (ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(3) and ICANN Policy 4(a)(iii)):
Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
At the time that Respondent registered the domain name, Complainant’s MIMI’S CAFE was well known and familiar to many Internet users. Here, it is clear from the content on the website that Respondent was not only familiar with Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the domain name, but intentionally adopted a name identical to the MIMI’S CAFE mark in order to create an association with Complainant and its restaurant services.
Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use with regard to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”); Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that "[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse"); Yahoo!, Inc. v. Ashby, D2000-0241 (WIPO June 14, 2000)(finding that the fame of the YAHOO! mark negated any plausible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the <yahooventures.com> domain name); and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000)(finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the name in bad faith).
Additionally, by using the photos of Complainant’s restaurants, links to its menus and official webpage, etc., Respondent’s web site gives the false impression of an affiliation with Complainant and its restaurants, making it clear that Respondent has sought to benefit from Complainant’s well-established goodwill. This is precisely the sort of conduct that falls under the Policy and thus evidences Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Fossil, Inc. v. cheng gong, FA 1458182 (Nat. Arb. Forum, October 2, 2012)(finding bad faith where Respondent misrepresented itself as Complainant with the use of the Fossil Oval Logo and references to “Fossil Outlet”); Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under [UDRP] ¶4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under [UDRP] ¶4(c)(iii).”); Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant).
Additionally, the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a site that downloads software onto the user’s computer which may contain malware has been found to demonstrate bad faith registration and use. See Retail Royalty Company and AEO Management Co. v. Private Whois, FA 1433844 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 26, 2012)(finding the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a site that causes malicious software to be downloaded onto the user’s computer was bad faith under the Policy).
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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.
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 Complainant prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Complainant uses the MIMIS CAFE mark in connection with its restaurant business in the United States. Complainant owns the mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,306,490, registered November 20,1984). Such registrations are sufficient to establish rights in the MIMIS CAFE mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [Complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, Complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶4(a)(i).”). Accordingly, Complainant’s USPTO registrations satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant claims the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MIMIS CAFE mark because respondent has simply added the generic term “coupons” to the mark. Adding of a generic term does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark under the UDRP. The disputed domain name also contains slight changes to the mark such as the generic top-level domain “.com” (“gTLD”), and the omission of space between words. These changes are not considered under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis. See Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc.; New Line Prods., Inc. & DC Comics v. Procount Bus. Servs., FA 360942 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (finding that the addition of one or more generic terms and a gTLD as well as the omission of spaces fails to create a meaningful distinction between the disputed domain name and the mark within it because “[s]uch additions do not disguise the fact that the dominant features of the domain names are [c]omplainant’s marks, and each domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the marks pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)”). Respondent’s <mimiscafecoupons.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MIMIS CAFE mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has 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 claims Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information identifies “Moran Poborsky” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, which does not suggest any relationship between the disputed domain name and Respondent’s name. Respondent is neither licensed nor authorized to use the MIMIS CAFE mark by Complainant. Respondent has failed to controvert any of Complainant’s contentions. Given the record, it seems clear Respondent is not commonly known by the <mimiscafecoupons.net> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Complainant claims Respondent has not provided any bona fide offering of goods or services, or made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to mirror Complainant’s web site closely to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent relies on photos of Complainant’s restaurant, Complainant’s menu, links to Complainant’s own website, and other content associating Complainant with the resolving page. Such behavior is not consistent with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Therefore, Respondent has not provided any bona fide offering of goods or services, or made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) and Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
Complainant claims Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attract confused Internet users to its own website for commercial gain. The disputed domain name resolves to a website promoting coupons to Complainant’s café. Respondent likely generates revenue each time a user follows these links. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name in such behavior. See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees). Respondent’s behavior is not consistent with any bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) and Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
The promoted coupon links direct through the Coupon Xplorer site, a documented malware product which hijacks the user’s browser and can infect the computer. The use of malware demonstrates a lack of rights under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). See Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2009) (finding that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which attempts to download computer viruses “failed to create any semblance of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)”). Therefore, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii) because the domain name is used in connection with malware.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract confused Internet users to its own website for commercial gain. The disputed domain name promotes content related to Complainant and features links from which Complainant likely generates revenue. The overall effect is an attempt to pass off Respondent’s web site as if was genuine. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on the complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to the respondent’s website). This amounts to bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
Respondent must have had actual notice of Complainant's rights in the MIMIS CAFE mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent uses photos of Complainant’s restaurant, menus, and links, all of which demonstrates Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s mark and rights. Respondent must have had actual notice of Complainant's mark, meaning Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Sears Brands, LLC v. Airhart, FA 1350469 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 2, 2010) (stating that constructive notice generally will not suffice for a finding of bad faith); see also 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”).
The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that attempts to download potentially malicious software on to the visitor’s computer. Such behavior constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1357512 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 17, 2010) (finding that a domain name attracting Internet users to a resolving website that attempts to download malicious software onto their computers to steal personal information “indicates bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶4(a)(iii)”)
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <mimiscafecoupons.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, October 20, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page