ScanSource, Inc. v. Yvette Brousse
Claim Number: FA1602001661401
Complainant is ScanSource, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Neil M. Batavia of Dority & Manning, Attorneys at Law, P.A., South Carolina, USA. Respondent is Yvette Brousse (“Respondent”), France.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <scansource-group.com>, registered with REGISTER.IT SPA.
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 February 17, 2016; the Forum received payment on February 17, 2016. The Complaint was received in both French and English.
On February 19, 2016, REGISTER.IT SPA confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <scansource-group.com> domain name is registered with REGISTER.IT SPA and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. REGISTER.IT SPA has verified that Respondent is bound by the REGISTER.IT SPA 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 February 29, 2016, the Forum served the French language Complaint and all Annexes, including a French language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 21, 2016 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@scansource-group.com. Also on February 29, 2016, the French 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 28, 2016, 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the French language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Founded in 1992, ScanSource, Inc. (NASDAQ: SCSC) is a value-added distributor of specialty technology products and services. ScanSource, Inc. sells only to resellers and specializes in several markets, including automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) and point-of-sale (POS) solutions through its ScanSource POS and Barcode sales units; voice, video, data and converged communications equipment through its ScanSource Catalyst and ScanSource Communications sales units; and physical security solutions through its ScanSource Security sales unit.
ScanSource is headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina and has 26 locations in North America, Latin America and Europe. The Company operates from a centralized distribution model with distribution centers in Southaven, Mississippi; Miami, Florida; Mexico City, Mexico; Curitiba, Brazil; Recife, Brazil; Sao Paulo, Brazil; and Liege, Belgium. The Complainant’s SCANSOURCE mark is famous throughout the world for distributorship services.
Complainant holds registrations of the SCANSOURCE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (copies provided in ANNEX [A]). Complainant has Reg. No. 1839751for SCANSOURCE for distributorship services in the field of bar coding equipment. Complainant’s first use in commerce for such services in connection with the mark was 1992. Complainant also has Reg. No. 4385355 for scansource for distributorship services in the fields of automatic identification and data capture products, point-of-sale products, communications products, and physical security products. Complainant’s first use in commerce for such services in connection with the mark was 2013. In addition, Complainant has several international registrations for the SCANSOURCE mark including registrations in Argentina (2613113), Brazil (824673654), Canada (TMA475705) Chile (674.309), China (4526041), Colombia (300792), Community Trademark (002746964), Hong Kong (301598536), Japan (5362880), South Korea (0222850), Mexico (879326), Venezuela (N-44187), and the Russian Federation (472334).
In addition to the above registrations, Complainant also uses the following domain name: <scansource.com> registered November 27, 1995 and directing browsers to a website for ScanSource, Inc.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDSThis Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix).
[a.] Respondent’s <scansource-group.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCANSOURCE trademark.
The Respondent has registered the <scansource-group.com> domain name, the predominant part of which is identical Complainant’s SCANSOURCE trademark. Respondent has simply appended the word “group” to Complainant’s registered trademark.
The mere addition of generic or descriptive words to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with Complainant’s registered mark “llbean” does not circumvent Complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see also Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction Inc., D2001-0075 (WIPO Mar. 6, 2001) (finding that the domain name <christiesauction.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since it merely adds the word “auction” used in its generic sense); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2000) (finding that four domain names that added the descriptive words “fashion” or “cosmetics” after the trademark were confusingly similar to the trademark); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which the complainant was engaged, did not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity); see also Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s MARRIOTT mark). ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(i).
[b.] Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <scansource- group.com> domain name. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
Respondent is NOT commonly known by the <scansource-group.com> domain name as evidenced by the WHOIS information (provided in Annex [C]); thus, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).
When first registered, Respondent’s domain name was used in association with email correspondence that clearly sought to impersonate Complainant and mislead consumers into mistakenly believing that Respondent was affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant.
Respondent is NOT affiliated in any way with Complainant. The email correspondence from the <scansource-group.com> domain name utilized without authorization Complainant’s SCANSOURCE marks and plagiarized graphics and text from Complainant. The email correspondence fraudulently informed Complainant’s customer that a part of Complainant’s accounting activities had been relocated in Poland, and fraudulently requested Complainant’s customer to remit future payment to a fraudulent account associated with Respondent. Such fraudulent use of a domain name to impersonate and create a false connection with Complainant is not a bona fide use. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (“In effect, Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant online. Such blatant unauthorized use of Complainant’s mark is evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”); Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Hotel Partners a/k/a eGO Inc., FA 190506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant at the disputed domain name, without authorization or license by Complainant . . . is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”). Indeed, Complainant has also pursued a criminal complaint with a French tribunal against Respondent as a result of the above-described conduct by Respondent.
After receiving correspondence from Complainant, Respondent appears to have suspended use of the <scansource-group.com> domain name as an active commercial website, likely as a result of the criminal complaint filed by Complainant. Such inactive use is referred to as “passive holding.” Respondent’s non-use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCANSOURCE mark is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
Respondent’s inaction permits the inference that it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. See Am. Home Prod. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where Respondent merely passively held the domain name); see also Nike, Inc. v. Crystal Int’l, D2001- 0102 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent made no use of the infringing domain names); see also Not My Kid, Inc. v. Sawchak, FA 167978 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003) (“[The] Panel finds that the passive holding of the domain name is an indication that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.”); see also Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that Respondent made preparations to use the domain name or one like it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).
[c.] Respondent registered and used the <scansource-group.com> domain name in bad faith. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
It can be inferred that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SCANSOURCE trademark because the mark is recognized worldwide and has been registered with the USPTO and Respondent clearly intended for users to associate the domain name with its fraudulent emails. Registration of a domain name, despite knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l, Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof”); see also 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 domain name in bad faith).
Respondent’s domain name was used to fraudulently impersonate Complainant and falsely suggest that email correspondence sent therefrom was sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. Such false association and passing off in violation of Complainant’s intellectual property rights is further evidence of bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”); H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) through respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using complainant’s famous marks and likeness); DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Bargman, D2000-0222 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (bad faith shown by Respondent’s use of title “Dodgeviper.com Official Home Page,” which gave consumers impression that Complainant endorsed and sponsored Respondent’s website); Fossil, Inc. v. www.fossil-watch.org c/o Host Master, FA 335513 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 9, 2004) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii)”).
In addition, the fact that Respondent currently passively holds the disputed <scansource- group.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000- 1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).
Furthermore, while each of the circumstances listed under Policy ¶4(b), if proven, evidences bad faith use and registration of a domain name, additional factors can also be used to support findings of bad faith. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the “totality of circumstances”); see Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“the examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive”).
Respondent’s registration of the disputed <scansource-group.com> domain name, a domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s SCANSOURCE mark in its entirety, was likely based on the distinctive and well-known qualities of Complainant’s mark. See 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); see also E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Oak Inv. Group, D2000-1213 (WIPO Nov. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s famous GALLO marks and (2) Respondent made no use of the domain name <winegallo.com>); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”).
In sum, Respondent’s fraudulent use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCANSOURCE mark evidences bad faith registration.
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(f), 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 has rights in the SCANSOURCE mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,839,751, registered June 14, 1994). Registration of a mark with a governmental authority (such as the USPTO) is normally adequate proof of rights under Policy ¶4(a)(i). Complainant has rights in the SCANSOURCE 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 claims Respondent’s <scansource-group.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SCANSOURCE mark because it contains Complainant’s entire mark, along with the hyphenated word “group.” The word “group” is generic or descriptive. It is not sufficient to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark. This Panel finds the <scansource-group.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SCANSOURCE mark. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy); see also Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under 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 is not commonly known by the <scansource-group.com> domain name. The available WHOIS information lists “Yvette Brousse” as Registrant. Respondent has produced no evidence which would support a finding Respondent is commonly known by the <scansource-group.com> domain name. This Panel therefore finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <scansource-group.com> domain name according to Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant claims Respondent fails to use the <scansource-group.com> domain name to provide (i) a bona fide offering of goods or services or (ii) a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because it has previously used the domain name to host an e-mail server used to communicated with Complainant’s customers to commit fraud (by impersonating Complainant). The domain name currently resolves to an inactive website. Such activities clearly do not constitute (i) a bona fide offering of goods or services or (ii) a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. No one acquires commercial rights by impersonating another or by committing fraud. This Panel concludes Respondent did not use the <scansource-group.com> domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) and Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for 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).”); see also Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for 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)).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent uses the <scansource-group.com> domain name in bad faith because it acted as an email server for Respondent to send (and receive) fraudulent emails (which allows Respondent to commercially benefit from defrauding Complainant’s customers). Respondent does not deny what it did. This Panel is forced to conclude Respondent registered and used the <scansource-group.com> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith); see also H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness).
Complainant claims Respondent uses the <scansource-group.com> domain name in bad faith because the domain currently resolves to an inactive website. The resolving website says only “This website is temporarily suspended.” Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Panel concludes Respondent registered and uses the <scansource-group.com> domain name in bad faith. See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
Complainant claims Respondent registered the <scansource-group.com> domain name in bad faith because it did so with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SCANSOURCE mark. Since this Panel concludes Respondent is impersonating Complainant, it is clear Respondent had actual knowledge Complainant’s rights. The impersonation was not “accidental.” Respondent registered the <scansource-group.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SCANSOURCE mark, which means Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. 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); see also Meredith Corp. v. CityHome, Inc., D2000-0223 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s constructive notice of the complainant’s registered mark was insufficient to support a finding of bad faith registration).
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 <scansource-group.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, March 28, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page