OpenTable, Inc. v. lin yanxiao / linyanxiao
Claim Number: FA1509001639274
Complainant is OpenTable, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David A.W. Wong of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is lin yanxiao / linyanxiao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <opentabl.com>, registered with Hangzhou AiMing Network Co., LTD.
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 Forum electronically on September 24, 2015; the Forum received payment on September 25, 2015.
On September 24, 2015, Hangzhou AiMing Network Co., LTD confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <opentabl.com> domain name is registered with Hangzhou AiMing Network Co., LTD and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hangzhou AiMing Network Co., LTD has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hangzhou AiMing Network 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 September 29, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 19, 2015 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@opentabl.com. Also on September 29, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 23, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 this administrative proceeding proceed in the English language pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a). Complainant requests this even in light of the Chinese language Registration Agreement (which would normally require this to proceed in Chinese). It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties.
Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are:
1. WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would evince a familiarity with the English language,
2. filing of a trademark registration with an entity which evinces an understanding of the English language,
3. a domain name that includes English language words,
4. a failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint, and
5. any evidence (or lack thereof) evincing Respondent’s understanding of the Chinese language included in the Registration Agreement. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language).
Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”).
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds sufficient persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides the proceeding should be in English.
Complainant requests the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
RATIONALE AS TO WHY NO TRANSLATION IS REQUIRED
On September 25, 2015, the Forum issued a notice indicating that the relevant Registration agreement for Respondent’s domain name <opentabl.com> is in Chinese and the Complainant either needs to translate the Complaint and Table of Contents into Chinese or amend the Complaint to provide a rationale outlining why the Respondent is capable of proceeding in English. Pursuant to this requirement, Complainant submits the following rationale outlining why the subject proceeding is capable of proceeding in English.
[a.] Respondent has set up the domain name <opentabl.com> to point to numerous websites that are, without exception, written in the English language. Upon information and belief, Respondent receives pay-per-click revenue and affiliate program revenue to drive Internet users to these sites. Respondent’s understanding of the English language to monetize the subject domain name clearly demonstrates why the subject proceeding is capable of proceeding in English.
[b.] Some of the websites that Respondent has pointed the subject domain name to indicate they emanate from the Complainant (which they do not) and seek personal information from Internet users in an exchange for compensation. Each of these fraudulent websites are in English which further clearly demonstrates Respondent’s understanding the English language and why the subject proceeding is capable of proceeding in English.
[c]. Requiring Complainant to translate the Complaint and Table of Contents into Chinese would cause unnecessary delay in contravention to UDRP Rule 10(c), which requires that “[t]he Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.”
[d.] Respondent has demonstrated that it understands the English language, as the Respondent’s domain name <opentabl.com> is made up of the English language mark OPENTABLE, save the last letter “e”.
[e.] Complainant has sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent and has not received any correspondence in return from Respondent seeking translation, clarification, or otherwise indicating that Respondent has any issue with understanding the English language.
UDRP Rule 11(a) gives the Panel the authority to determine the language of the administrative proceeding in regard to all of the circumstances of the proceeding. Additionally, UDRP Rule 10(b) states that the Panel must ensure that the parties in an administrative proceeding are treated equally and fairly, while UDRP Rule 10(c) states that administrative proceedings should take place expeditiously. It is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the UDRP Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the administrative proceeding. See Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Huangwensheng, et al., Case No. D2012-0342 (WIPO May 22, 2012). In light of the rationale above, Complainant believes that the most just and expeditious way to proceed with the administrative proceeding is in the English language. Therefore, translation of the Complaint and Table of Contents into Chinese is not necessary.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix); UDRP Policy ¶4(a).
[a.] The domain name <opentabl.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks OPENTABLE® and OPENTABLE.COM® (together, the “OPENTABLE Marks”) and the <opentable.com> domain name in which the Complainant has rights. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); UDRP Policy ¶4(a)(i).
i. Complainant is the leading supplier of reservation, table management, and guest management software for restaurants. In addition, Complainant also operates the website at www.opentable.com, the world’s most popular website for making restaurant reservations online. Complainant provides its services and software under the OPENTABLE Marks to over 32,000 restaurants worldwide and eats more than 16,000,000 diners per month via online bookings.
ii. Complainant has been offering its services under the OPENTABLE Marks since at least as early as June 1999.
iii. As a result of continuous and significant use of the mark OPENTABLE Marks and the <opentable.com> domain name, Complainant has also established strong common law rights in the OPENTABLE Marks throughout the United States, China, and elsewhere. In addition, Complainant has secured numerous registrations around the world, including in the Registrant’s domicile.
iv. Respondent has since registered <opentabl.com>, a domain name that is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. ICANN Domain Name Dispute decisions have consistently held that minor changes to a complainant’s mark are insufficient to negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (NAF Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Nat’l Geographic Soc’y v. Stoneybrook Invs., FA 96263 (NAF Jan. 11, 2001) (finding that the domain name <nationalgeographics.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC mark); see also Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (NAF Dec. 6, 2003).
[b.] The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to <opentabl.com>. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
i. Respondent is not commonly known by the <opentabl.com> domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use any version of Complainant’s mark for any purpose. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists Respondent as “lin yanxiao” and identifies no other connection between Respondent and the disputed domain name. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (NAF Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (NAF May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶4(c)(ii) “to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail”).
ii. Respondent is using the <opentabl.com> domain name to divert and redirect Internet users in an apparently random fashion to different websites including 1) a commercial landing website; 2) websites purporting to emanate from the Complainant offering prizes in exchange for the completion of a survey; and 3) other seemingly random third-party websites.
iii. Respondent is using the <opentabl.com> domain name to divert Internet users to a commercial landing website that displays links to third-party websites, including many that compete directly with Complainant’s services. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Respondent derives commercial benefit from these diversions due to click-through fees from the links on the website. Use of a domain name identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s OPENTABLE Marks to attract Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website for Respondent’s benefit does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (NAF 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 Policy ¶4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”); see also WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (NAF June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy).
iv. Respondent is also using the <opentabl.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to websites purporting to emanate from the Complainant offering prizes in exchange for the completion of a survey. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Respondent is likely redirecting to these websites in order to perpetuate a scam that is likely designed to capture Internet user’s private information while purporting to be the Complainant.
v. Respondent is also using the <opentabl.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to other seemingly random third-party websites. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Respondent derives commercial benefit from these redirections from affiliate programs or other revenue generating mechanisms that reward those that redirect Internet users. Use of a domain name identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s OPENTABLE Marks to attract Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website for Respondent’s benefit does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (NAF 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 Policy ¶4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”); see also WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (NAF June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy).
[c.] The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
i. Upon information and belief, Respondent receives commissions for diverting and redirecting Internet users to third-party websites via the search engine and links located at Respondent’s website. Additionally, Respondent’s use of Complainant’s distinctive OPENTABLE Marks and <opentable.com> domain name in the Respondent’s domain name creates a likelihood of confusion and suggests an attempt to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for Respondent’s commercial gain. This is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (NAF Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (NAF Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (NAF Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv)).
ii. The Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to pretend that it is the Complainant and in particular to obtain information from consumers seeking to do business with Complainant. Respondent’s activities constitute fraud. These facts indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business at the time that it registered the Disputed Domain Name, that such knowledge prompted the registrations for the purpose of perpetrating fraud, and that Respondent then used the Disputed Domain Name to cloak itself in Complainant’s identity. See Demco, Inc. v. Adminprivateregcontact a/k/a Demco USA, Case No. D2011-1516 (WIPO Oct. 31, 2011) citing Graybar Services, Inc. v. Graybar Elec, Grayberinc Lawrenge, Case No. D2009-1017 (WIPO Oct. 2, 2009).
iii. Respondent’s registration of the <opentabl.com> domain name, which contains almost all of Complainant’s OPENTABLE Marks and its <opentable.com> domain name in their entirety, indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the mark. The similarity between Complainant’s business and the content displayed on Respondent’s landing website is further evidence that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the OPENTABLE Marks. Respondent’s registration of a domain name that contains almost all of Complainant’s mark, with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark, is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (NAF Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between the complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website was obvious, the respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”); see also Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (NAF Oct. 24, 2002) (“[T]here is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively.”).
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 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.”).
Complainant claims rights in the OPENTABLE mark through registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,250,662, registered September 21, 2005). Registration of a trademark with a governmental authority is sufficient evidence of rights under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA 681239 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) (finding that, where the complainant had submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, “such evidence establishes complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)”). Complainant has rights in the OPENTABLE mark through its USPTO registration (inter alia) under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant claims Respondent’s disputed <opentabl.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OPENTABLE mark. The disputed domain differs from the OPENTABLE mark through the removal of the letter “e” and the addition of the gTLD “.com.” Panels have found that where a domain differs from a mark only through the removal of a single letter (“e” in this case) it is confusingly similar. See Hallelujah Acres, Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 805029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s <hacrs.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s HACRES mark because it omitted the letter “e” from the mark and added the generic top-level domain “.com”). In addition, domain name syntax always requires a TLD, whether it is a gTLD or a ccTLD. Therefore, a TLD must be disregarded when conducting a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis. Respondent’s <opentabl.com> is confusingly similar to the OPENTABLE 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 has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized to use the OPENTABLE mark for any purpose. The WHOIS information shows Respondent registered the disputed domain using the name “lin yanxiao,” which does not obviously resemble the disputed domain name in any way. It can be easily determined a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name based on WHOIS information when there is a lack of extrinsic evidence to the contrary. 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). Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Complainant claims Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent appears to use the <opentabl.com> domain name to redirect users to a wide variety of websites, such as a commercial parked website, a survey website, and other seemingly random third-party websites. Using a confusingly similar domain to redirect users to commercial websites is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Geoffrey, Inc. v. Toyrus.com, FA 150406 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2003) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that it used to redirect Internet users to an Internet directory website that featured numerous pop-up advertisements for commercial goods and sexually explicit websites); Homer TLC, Inc. v. Wang, FA 1336037 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2010) (holding that, where a disputed domain name purports to offer Internet users a gift card as compensation for filling out surveys, the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name amounts to neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)). Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not fall within the scope of the exceptions contained within Policy ¶4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Essentially, Respondent is using this domain name was a second generation dynamic parking page. Instead of displaying a list of links to click on, the domain name automatically forwards the user to a random web site (and presumably charging the destination web site). This saves the time and bother of requiring a user to click on a link. The Panel is reminded of an unstable wormhole from the Star Trek series…you never know where you will end up. Using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect users to random commercial websites constitutes bad faith registration and use. See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (holding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to display links to various third-party websites demonstrated bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv)); Homer TLC, Inc. v. Wang, FA 1336037 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2010) (finding that, where a disputed domain name offers incentives for the completion of surveys, “Internet users are likely to believe that such activities are sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant and is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv)”). Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
Complainant also claims that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's OPENTABLE mark, in conjunction with the manner in which the disputed domain resembles the mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the <opentabl.com> domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. This Panel does not agree with this argument. The resulting web sites have nothing to do with dining or reservations for dining. In fact, this Panel cannot figure out a rhyme or reason for the selected web sites (which suggests they are random). Therefore, this Panel will not find bad faith registration and use on this ground.
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 <opentabl.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Thursday, November 5, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page