U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) v. Dave Bontempo / Siloquent
Claim Number: FA1707001738780
Complainant is U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (“Complainant”), represented by Kevin M. Hayes of Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Oregon, USA. Respondent is Dave Bontempo / Siloquent (“Respondent”), Maryland, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <nihclassifieds.com>, registered with Google Inc.
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.
Honorable John J. Upchurch (Ret.), Paul M. DeCicco and The Honourable
Neil Anthony Brown QC (Chair) as Panelists.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 6, 2017; the Forum received payment on July 6, 2017.
On July 7, 2017, Google Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <nihclassifieds.com> domain name is registered with Google Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google Inc. 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 July 12, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 1, 2017 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@nihclassifieds.com. Also on July 12, 2017, 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 July 31, 2017.
On August 4, 2017, the FORUM received a timely Additional Submission from Complainant which the Panel has accepted and taken into account in reaching its decision.
On August 9, 2017, the FORUM received a timely Additional Submission from Respondent which the Panel has accepted and taken into account in reaching its decision.
On August 21, 2017 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the Forum appointed Honorable John J. Upchurch (Ret.), Paul M. DeCicco and The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC (Chair) as Panelists.
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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
1. The Complaint is based on Complainant’s ownership of two NIH-formative marks as demonstrated through their registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office , namely:
(a)(NIH…TURNING DISCOVERY INTO HEALTH—Reg. No. 4,168,707, registered July 3, 2012; and
(b) NIH TOOLBOX—Reg. No. 4,687,840, registered Feb. 17, 2015). See Compl., at Attached Exs. 3–4.
2. The marks are used in connection with biomedical and public health research for the United States government.
3. In addition to registered rights, Complainant has common law rights in the NIH mark.
4. The <nihclassifieds.com> domain name (registered June 9, 2016) is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, and Respondent has attempted to capitalize on that similarity.
5. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <nihclassifieds.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name because the WHOIS record identifies Respondent as “Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124631936.” See Compl., at Attached Ex. 6.
6. Further, Respondent has not made any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the website that resolves from the disputed domain name purports to be Complainant, amounting to a fraudulent misrepresentation.
7. Respondent registered and used the <nihclassifieds.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name that falsely suggests an affiliation with Complainant constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent made the following contentions.
1.Respondent is a small woman-owned business that has been providing classifieds (in connection with the terms of the domain name) since 2014. Respondent was engaged by the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) Recreation and Welfare Association to provide the domain hosting, technical support, and platform to provide housing in a geographic region. Respondent’s contract ended in 2016, at which point Respondent registered the disputed domain name and began providing similar services to the Employee Morale and Recreation Association, an entity engaged in support of employees for the public and private sectors (which include employees and contractors of NIH). Therefore, Respondent’s use of the domain name corresponds to the terms of the domain name, and constitutes a bona fide offering.
2.Moreover, the term “NIH” is a ubiquitous geographic reference. See Resp., at Attached Exs. D–I. There are other domain names that incorporate the acronym and have no affiliation with Complainant’s alleged marks.
3. Respondent neither registered nor used the domain name in bad faith. The screenshot provided by Complainant was taken during Respondent’s transition period from its content on <fedesp.com/classifieds> to the disputed domain name. Alleged infringing content has since been removed, and the current site references no affiliation, endorsement, sponsorship, or partnership with the National Institutes of Health.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant
Complainant made the following additional contentions.
1. Respondent has argued that its domain name does not infringe upon Complainant’s NIH mark because it is used for a classifieds service and not for research in the field of human health and disease. However, for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i ), the first element of the test is not trademark infringement but whether the domain name is “confusingly similar” to Complainant’s NIH mark. Complainant contends that it is not, as it is well settled that the addition of a generic term to a trademark as in the present case makes the domain name confusingly similar.
2. Respondent argues that it had a contract with the NIH Recreation and Welfare Association to provide classifieds under fedesp.com/classifieds, and that this expired contact gives Respondent rights to use “NIH” on the disputed domain name.
3. However, the NIH Recreation and Welfare Association has permission from Complainant to use “NIH” but not to sublicense it to Respondent. Further, that was on fedesp.com/classifieds, not on the disputed domain name. As the contract with the NIH Recreation and Welfare Association had expired does not create a right or legitimate interest in registering the domain name.
4. Respondent also claims that once its contract with the NIH Recreation and Welfare Association ended, Respondent registered the disputed domain name. But Respondent could not reasonably believe that its expired contract with the NIH Recreation and Welfare Association created an alleged right or legitimate interest before or after the contract expired. Secondly, the contract ended in November 2016, but the disputed domain name was registered in June 2016.
5. In view of Respondent’s contract with the NIH Recreation and Welfare Association, it must have known of the NIH mark.
6. Even if other parties that have registered problematic domain names or might be infringing on Complainant’s NIH mark, this does not entitle Respondent to register the disputed domain name.
7. Also, NIH is not a geographic location. It is the name of a Federal Government Agency and a trademark.
8. Respondent argues that the false statements of affiliation and endorsement of the website were removed and this shows its lack of bad faith.
9. But the presence of the statements on the website at all show bad faith.
10. Moreover, attached Exhibit A shows that as of January 27, 2017 (well after the alleged transition in 2016), the website corresponding to the disputed domain still stated falsely, “The ONLY Classified Ad Resource Approved or Supported by the National Institutes of Health.”
11. Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which includes the exact trademark of Complainant, and used this domain name to provide a service falsely claimed to be endorsed by Complainant.
Respondent
Respondent made the following further contentions.
1. Complainant does not own a trademark for “NIH”. Its registered marks are very specific. The National Institutes of Health has 2 marks:
(a) U.S. Trademark Registration 4168707 for: NIH...TURNING DISCOVERY
INTO HEALTH.
(b)Trademark Registration 4687840 for: NIH TOOLBOX.
2. The nihclassifieds.com domain does not include “Turning Discovery Into Health”
and has nothing to do with the registered mark which is registered with respect to “Downloadable electronic educational and professional publications, namely, newsletters, fact sheets, and brochures about a federally funded biomedical and scientific research facility and information about federally funded biomedical and scientific research on human health and human diseases.”
3. The nihclassifieds.com domain does not include “TOOLBOX” and can not include a
“Standard Character Mark” (see EXHIBIT B). NIHCLASSIFIEDS is not similar to the
registered mark which is registered with respect to goods and services as follows: “IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Educational services, namely, conducting training programs, conferences, and workshops in the field of neuroscience
and neurological and behavioral function research; distribution of training material in connection therewith.”
IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Biomedical research in the field of neuroscience and neurological and behavioral function; Providing on-line non-downloadable computer programs that feature data collected from computerized questionnaires, forms, glossaries, and templates for use in the field of neuroscience
and neurological and behavioral function research. FIRST USE: 20081000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE:20081000 IC 044. US 100 101. G & S: Biomedical analysis, testing, evaluation, and consultation in the field of neuroscience and neurological and behavioral function; providing biomedical information in the field of neuroscience and neurological and behavioral function research via a global Internet website”
4. Complainant has failed to show how the domain name nih classifieds is confusingly similar to trademarks (not domains) relating to health that have nothing to do with classifieds. Complainant does not own the trademark for “NIH” as it repeatedly misrepresents. NIH is a trade name which is not a protected right as seen in
5. Respondent’s support for the Employee Moral and Recreational Association shows a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Siloquent has spent extensive time, effort and resources building the client base for its classifieds platform since 2014. This client base offers affordable short and long term apartments, rooms and housing for rent on the classified platform. This platform supports EMRA members – many of which are employees that work for the National Institutes of Health or near the campus.
6. The site never had either of Complainant marks and never made any reference
to Complainants marks goods and services. The content from the previous
contract that was on the site for years was removed during the transition and is not
on the current classifieds site.
7. The domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks and the Complaint should be dismissed.
8. The record as a whole clearly demonstrates that: (1) the domain name registered
by the Respondent is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; (2) the
Respondent has rights and legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is not being used in bad faith.
Respondent respectfully requests that the Administrative Panel denies the remedy
requested by Complainant.
1. Complainant is a component agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and public health research.
2. The disputed domain name has been registered on behalf of Siloquent,
a small woman owned business, which has provided classified advertisements for the community, initially for the NIH Recreation and Welfare Association and more recently for the Employee Morale and Recreation Association.
3. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 9, 2016.
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.
The first question that arises is whether Complainant has a trademark or service mark on which it may rely.
Complainant submits that it owns two “NIH-formative marks” as demonstrated through their registration of those marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office registrations, namely
(a) NIH…TURNING DISCOVERY INTO HEALTH—Reg. No. 4,168,707, registered July 3, 2012; and
(b) NIH TOOLBOX—Reg. No. 4,687,840, registered Feb. 17, 2015). See Compl., at Attached Exs. 3–4.
Such registrations with the USPTO have long been considered to confer rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register at Exhibit 1, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that that Complainant has demonstrated its trademark rights in the NIH…TURNING DISCOVERY INTO HEALTH and NIH TOOLBOX marks under Policy ¶ 4(a) (i).
The second question that arises is whether the disputed <nihclassifieds.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to one or more of Complainant’s marks.
Clearly the domain name is not identical to either of the trademarks as, although it includes the initials NIH it does not include either of the expressions TURNING DISCOVERY INTO HEALTH or TOOLBOX which appear in the respective trademarks. Accordingly, although not identical, the Panel will next consider if the domain name is confusingly similar to either of the trademarks.
The domain name, of course, also adds the word “classifieds” to the dominant feature of the mark and also the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Elimination of words from a mark and adding a new term may well give rise to confusing similarity. See Black Hills Ammunition, Inc. v. ICS INC, FA 1541572 (Forum Mar. 4, 2014) (finding that the <black-hillsammo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the BLACK HILLS AMMUNITION mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).). In the present case, the addition of the word “classifieds” would, in the opinion of the Panel, lead Internet users to think that there was an association between Complainant and the classifieds invoked by the domain name, which after all was the intention of Respondent in registering the domain name.
Further, adding “.com” has been seen as irrelevant under the Policy. See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”).
Having regard to all of those considerations leads the Panel to conclude that their combined effect on internet users would be to convey the notion that the domain name was a domain name of Complainant or affiliated with it and that it dealt with classified advertisements that were similarly of or affiliated with Complainant.
Respondent also contends that the <nihclassifieds.com> domain name is comprised of common and generic/descriptive terms and as such cannot be found to be identical/confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.However, the Panel finds, in keeping with general practice, that such a determination is not necessary or even relevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this portion of the Policy considers only whether Complainant has rights in the marks and whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to those marks. See Precious Puppies of Florida, Inc. v. kc, FA 1028247 (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 (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 Panel therefore finds that the <nihclassifieds.com> domain name is confusingly similar to each of Complainant’s marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain 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 (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 (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.”).
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has taken NIH, the dominant segment of Complainant’s two trademarks and used them in its domain name, adding the word “classifieds”, which gives the impression to the internet user that the domain name is in some way affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant;
(b) The unchallenged evidence is that Respondent intended that such an impression should be given;
(c) In particular, Respondent has included on its website the words “The ONLY Housing Classified Ad Resource Approved or Supported by the National Institutes of Health.”
(d) The above activities were engaged in by Respondent without the knowledge or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name because the WHOIS record identifies Respondent as “Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124631936.” See Compl., at Attached Ex. The Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the 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 the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Respondent essentially advances two reasons why it can rebut the prima facie
The first is that before the domain name was registered, and since 2014, Respondent had been providing classified advertisements on the internet under a contract it had with the National Institutes of Health Recreation and Welfare Association. This contract provided the domain hosting, technical support, and a platform to provide housing in a geographic region, apparently centering on the NIH headquarters. That contract ended in 2016, whereupon Respondent registered the disputed domain name and began providing similar services to a separate organization called the Employee Morale and Recreation Association, which is an entity engaged in support of employees for the public and private sectors, including employees and contractors of NIH. In those circumstances, as the Panel understands it, Respondent has formed the view that its current ownership of the domain name and its use in the above manner, is a bona fide offering and hence gives rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
To this argument, Complainant says in reply that Respondent seems to be arguing that its expired contract with the NIH Recreation and Welfare Association gives it a right to use Complainant’s NIH initials in the domain name presently in dispute. But as Complainant points out, any such argument rests on a false basis. Complainant says that it gave permission to the NIH Recreation and Welfare Association to use its initials in the name of the organisation, but it did not give it the right to sub-licence that permission to Respondent. Accordingly Complainant submits, and the Panel must agree, Respondent has never had the right to use the initials and certainly does not have that right now.
In any event, any such permission must have been confined to carrying classified advertisements in the manner they were carried under the previous arrangement, by what is known apparently as “fedesp.com/classifieds”, and not by means of the alleged new arrangement via the disputed domain name . As the contract with the NIH Recreation and Welfare Association had expired, this prior arrangement cannot have created a right or legitimate interest in registering or using the disputed domain name.
Moreover, it may not be pivotal, but the Panel finds there is also some strength in
Complainant’s further point that the contract with the NIH Recreation and Welfare
Association ended in November 2016, but the disputed domain name had been
registered in advance, as it were, namely in June 2016 making Respondent’s
argument on the sequence of events somewhat dubious.
Respondent also argues, at least in effect, that Respondent’s support for the Employee Moral and Recreational Association, that is to say, its current support via the disputed domain name, itself shows a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. This support builds on the client base developed since 2014 for those needing affordable short and long term apartments, rooms and housing for rent. Many members of EMRA members are also “employees that work for the National Institutes of Health or near the campus.” The argument seems to be that because some users of the classifieds, presumably either as advertisers or as people responding to the advertisements, are employees of Complainant, this gives Respondent the right to use the employer’s trademark and in a way that benefits some of the employees. The Panel’s response to this argument is that although the motives of those involved may be good and although some employees of Complainant may benefit from the advertisements, it is drawing a very long bow to conclude that this gives Respondent the right to register and use the domain name as it has. The Panel is unable to agree with Respondent on this issue.
Respondent’s second argument relied on in response to rebut the prima facie case is that the domain name is a geographic indicator, that it is invoking a place, namely the “ NIH campus” and that all that Respondent has done is hold out the place name and the services, namely classified advertisements, that it is offering by means of the domain name. In other words, the argument is akin to that often used successfully with respect to generic words which, subject to some conditions, may give rise to a right or legitimate interest in a domain name.
The Panel has given careful consideration to this argument, but is unable to accept it. In the first place, in the opinion of the Panel, the domain name is not invoking a place name. It is true that there is a place apparently known as “NIH campus.” The Panel notes this as Complainant itself states on its website that:
“The NIH headquarters, known as the “NIH campus” to the local community, are located in Bethesda, Maryland. “
Nevertheless, on balance, the Panel is of the view that internet users in general are more likely than not to read the domain name as meaning that it is a domain name dealing with classified advertisements of the NIH, not that it is a domain name dealing with classified advertisements about premises, employment and such at or near the premises of the NIH.
Secondly, to rely on the alleged geographic, descriptive or generic nature of the domain name, as Respondent claims submits it can do, means that the domain name must mean exactly that and may not be used as a guise to trade on another party’s trademark . In the present case, Respondent is clearly using the domain name to invoke NIH which is a trademark and to capitalize on the goodwill associated with NIH to draw traffic to its website and to benefit from the false perception that Complainant sponsors or endorses the services offered on the website.
Looked at from the perspective of a consumer impression created by the juxtaposition of the dominant segment of the NIH mark and the word “classifieds” , the mark holder is itself offering classified advertisements or at least is endorsing business conducted under its name. There would in the Panel’s opinion, be initial interest confusion in an internet user confronted by the domain name when the domain name is associate with a business, as it is in the present case and it would be so even if that business is unrelated in scope to the mark.
Indeed, Respondent appears to admit that it uses NIH in its domain name because of its trademark value rather than in spite of it. This is so because the letters NIH are not simply drawn at random but are the reasonably well known initials of the National Institutes of Health. In that regard, the services that the Panel understands would be advertised on the website would not be exclusive to NIH employees, or even necessarily or predominately related to the geographical area near NIH’s campus in Maryland.
The Panel is therefore unable to accept the arguments advanced by Respondent and finds that it has not rebutted the prima facie case against it and that it has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Subparagraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances in particular (but without limitation) shall be considered evidence that the registration or use of the domain name is in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
Respondent replies to that submission by saying that the words complained of appeared only during a “transition period” and “That content is not on the current instance of the site (see EXIBIT A). The nihclassified.com site does not reference any affiliation, endorsement or partnership with the National Institutes of Health.”
Complainant rejoins with Exhibit A to its further submission, showing that the words in question appeared on the website in January 2017.
The Panel’s view is that the evidence shows that, at the least, the words in question appeared on the website at some time, which establishes the basic point , and that they were there in January 2017, well after any reasonable “transition period’, as the disputed domain name had been registered on June 9, 2016.
In any event, Respondent’s difficulty on this issue comes from the fact that the domain name itself contained the dominant NIH segment of Complainant’s trademarks, giving rise to the false and misleading inference that this was the domain name of Complainant and that it was affiliated with Complainant.
The Panel therefore finds that the domain name was registered and used by Respondent in bad faith.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nihclassifieds.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC (Chair),
Honorable John J. Upchurch (Ret.) and
Paul M. DeCicco
Panelists
Dated: August 30, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page