The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Yin Jun / Jun Yin
Claim Number: FA1709001751363
Complainant is The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“Complainant”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is Yin Jun / Jun Yin
(“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <httpstd.com>, <httptdbank.com>, <tdbank.mom>, <tdbankk.com>, <tdcanadatrust.site>, <wwwtd.net>, and <wwwtdbank.net>, registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited and Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 29, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 29, 2017.
On September 30, 2017, HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited; Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <httpstd.com>, <httptdbank.com>, <tdbank.mom>, <tdbankk.com>, <tdcanadatrust.site>, <wwwtd.net>, and <wwwtdbank.net> domain names are registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited and Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited and Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) have verified that Respondent is bound by the HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited and Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 6, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 26, 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@httpstd.com, postmaster@httptdbank.com, postmaster@tdbank.mom, postmaster@tdbankk.com, postmaster@tdcanadatrust.site, postmaster@wwwtd.net, and postmaster@wwwtdbank.net. Also on October 6, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 31, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 that the domain name(s) be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
i) Complainant uses the TD, TD BANK and CANADA TRUST marks for banking and related financial services. Complainant registered the TD (e.g., Reg. No. 1,649,009, registered Jun. 25, 1991) and TDBANK (e.g., Reg. No. 3,788,055, registered May 11, 2010) marks with United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). See Compl. Ex. A. Complainant also registered the TD (e.g., Reg. No. TMA396087, registered Mar. 20, 1992), TD BANK (e.g., Reg. No. TMA549396, registered Aug. 7, 2001), and CANADA TRUST (e.g., Reg. No. 1649009, registered Mar. 12, 1993) marks with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”). Id. Respondent’s <httpstd.com>, <httptdbank.com>, <tdbank.mom>, <tdbankk.com>, <tdcanadatrust.site>, <wwwtd.net>, and <wwwtdbank.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because they contain Complainant’s one or a combination of the famous trademarks in their entirety and adds one of the generic terms “www,” “http,” and “https,” and adds a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). One of the domain names, <tdbank.mom>, is identical to Complainant’s TD BANK mark as it contains the mark in its entirety and merely adds the gTLD “.mom.” Finally, the <tdbankk.com> is confusingly similar as it contains Complainant’s entire TD BANK mark and simply adds an additional letter “k” and the gTLD “.com.”
ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <httpstd.com>, <httptdbank.com>, <tdbank.mom>, <tdbankk.com>, <tdcanadatrust.site>, <wwwtd.net>, and <wwwtdbank.net> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, based on the WHOIS information, nor has Complainant licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to use the marks for any purpose. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the domain names redirect internet users to websites featuring links to Complainant or third-party websites directly competing with Complainant's business. See Compl. Ex. F. Thus, Respondent has intentionally chosen a domain name based on a famous trademark in an effort to direct Internet users to a parked aggregator website. Further, Respondent fails to make an active use of the <tdbank.mom> domain name, as it redirects internet users to a blank page that lacks content. Id.
iii) Respondent registered and continues to use the <httpstd.com>, <httptdbank.com>, <tdbank.mom>, <tdbankk.com>, <tdcanadatrust.site>, <wwwtd.net>, and <wwwtdbank.net> domain names in bad faith. Respondent registered multiple domain names in the current proceeding, and has registered other confusingly similar domain names to other famous marks. See Compl. Ex. J. Respondent also disrupts Complainant’s business by attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. Respondent does this to offer pay-per-click-links in direct competition with Complainant. See Compl. Ex. F. Further, it is not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which Respondent would have been unaware of Complainant’s brands at the time the domain names were registered as the domain names contain Complainant’s well-known trademarks. Finally, the <tdbankk.com> domain name is a typosquatted version of Complainant’s TD BANK trademark and has intentionally been designed to closely mimic Complainant’s trademark and primary domain <tdbank.com>.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response. The panel notes that Respondent registered the domain names on the following dates: <httpstd.com> (April 21, 2017), <httptdbank.com> (May 13, 2017), <tdbank.mom> (May 10, 2016), <tdbankk.com> (August 9, 2013), <tdcanadatrust.site> (May 21, 2017), <wwwtd.net> (May 11, 2017), and <wwwtdbank.net> (May 11, 2017).
Preliminary Issue 1: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant contends that Respondent owns all of the disputed domain names, as six (6) of the seven (7) domain names list the dame registrant, “Yin Jun,” and the seventh one lists “Jun Yun,” a simple transportation of “Yin Jun.” Further, all seven domain names share the same registrant email, <domain789@126.com>. See Compl. Ex. E.
The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently presented evidence demonstrating that the listed entities are jointly controlled by the chosen Respondent who is using multiple aliases.
Preliminary Issue 2: Language of the Proceedings
The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Chinese.
Complainant has alleged that because Respondent is conversant and proficient in English, the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) it has the discretion to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding. See FilmNet Inc. v Onetz, FA 96196 (Forum Feb. 12, 2001 (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Korean being designated as the required language in the registration agreement because the respondent submitted a response in English after receiving the complaint in Korean and English). Complainant contends Respondent understands the English language because the resolving websites contain the English language. See Compl. Ex. F. Further, the disputed domain names all contain Latin characters. Finally, Complainant does not know the Chinese language and thus translation of the Complaint would be time consuming, costly, and burdensome.
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, in the absence of Response and no objection to Complainant's request for the language of proceeding, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
Complainant established that it had rights in the marks contained in the disputed domain names. Each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected marks.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names 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(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 (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.”).
The first component to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) requires a complainant demonstrate its rights in a trademark. Registration of a mark with the USPTO and CIPO sufficiently establishes the required rights in a mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (finding, “Registration of a mark with a governmental authority (or, in this case, multiple governmental authorities) is sufficient to establish rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i)”); see also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. VistaPrint Technologies c/o Vistaprint North American Services Corp., FA 1617798 (Forum June 3, 2015) (concluding that “Complainant’s valid registration of the STATEFARM.COM mark with the CIPO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Complainant claims to have registered the TD, and TD BANK marks with the USPTO (TD – e.g., Reg. No. 1,649,009, registered Jun. 25, 1991)(TD BANK – e.g., Reg. No. 3,788,055, registered May 11, 2010) and CIPO (TD – e.g., Reg. No. TMA396087, registered Mar. 20, 1992)(TD BANK – e.g., Reg. No. TMA549396, registered Aug. 7, 2007). See Compl. Ex. A. Further, complainant claims to have registered the CANADA TRUST mark with CIPO (e.g., Reg. No. TMA409300 Mar. 3, 1993). Id. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established its rights in the TD, TD BANK, and CANADA TRUST marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The second component of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) requires Complainant demonstrate the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its TD, TD BANK, or CANADA TRUST marks. Respondent’s domain names contain Complainant’s famous trademarks in their entirety, combines the marks in their entirety and adds one of the generic terms “www,” “http,” and “https,” or the letter “k,” and adds a gTLD. These do not serve to distinguish a trademark from a disputed domain name. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. DAVID BRAXTON / D Braxton Enterprise, FA 1734245 (Forum June 28, 2017) (finding that the <tdcanada-trustgroups.com> domain name was a combination of complainant’s TD and CANADA TRUST marks, and was therefore confusingly similar); see also Marie Claire Album v. Blakely, D2002-1015 (WIPO Dec. 23, 2002) (holding that the letters “www” are not distinct in the “Internet world” and thus the respondent's <wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant's MARIE CLAIRE trademark); see also Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also OpenTable, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1626187 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015 (“Respondent’s <oipentable.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OPENTABLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the disputed domain merely adds the letter ‘i’ . . . ”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the additions made to Complainant’s marks in the disputed domain names do not serve to differentiate the two for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <httpstd.com>, <httptdbank.com>, <tdbank.mom>, <tdbankk.com>, <tdcanadatrust.site>, <wwwtd.net>, and <wwwtdbank.net> domain names as required by Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, and Complainant has never licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to use the TD, TD BANK, or CANADA TRUST marks for any purpose. Further, the WHOIS registrant information can be used to indicate that a respondent is not commonly by a domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists registrant as “Yin Jun, Jun Yin, and Nexperian Holding Limited” which does not reflect that Respondent has been commonly known by the <httpstd.com>, <httptdbank.com>, <tdbank.mom>, <tdbankk.com>, <tdcanadatrust.site>, <wwwtd.net>, and <wwwtdbank.net> domain names. See Compl. Ex. E. The Panel thus finds Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial of fair use. The domain names redirect Internet users to websites featuring links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business. Hosting a webpage which displays links to competing webpages can evince that a respondent has no rights and legitimate interests. See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks). Further, Complainant contends that some of Respondent’s websites also features links that directly reference Complainant and its business. Passing off as a complainant can also prove a lack of rights and legitimate interests. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (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). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpage, which displays links to various competing webpages, yet does not appear to pass off as Complainant. See Compl. Ex. F. Presumably, Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from the linked websites that are listed at the disputed domain names’ websites. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Complainant also alleges that Respondent is using the <tdbank.mom> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that resolves to a blank page and lacks content. An inactive website fails to make 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). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (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)). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage, which displays the error message “This site can’t be reached.” See Compl. Ex. F. Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain names are not in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant argues that Respondent currently holds registrations for several other domain names that misappropriate the trademarks of well-known brands and businesses, which demonstrates a pattern of bad faith registration. Arguing a pattern of bad faith registration can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. zhangzongze / sweden / zhang jinxian / canada goose / harleydavidson / harley davidson, FA1410001587625 (Forum December 10, 2014) (“The Panel agrees that the case relates to the same Respondent here, and Respondent’s history of bad faith suggests Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), especially given the presence of three domain names in this proceeding that incorporate the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark.”). Respondent has allegedly registered seven (7) domain names at issue in the current proceeding, and Complainant claims Respondent has multiple other confusingly similar domain names to other famous marks. See Compl. Ex. J. Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent registered and uses the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Further, Complainant claims that Respondent has purposefully registered domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TD BANK trademark with the intent of disrupting the business of the Complainant by diverting Internet users to an aggregator website, and attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the various websites. Disrupting a complainant’s business and trading off on the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpages, and all of the webpages save for the <tdbank.mom> domain name, display links to competing services. See Compl. Ex. E. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by offering competing hyperlinks and trades upon the goodwill of Complainant in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv).
Additionally, Complainant contends that the <tdbank.mom> domain name currently resolves to an inactive site and is not being used. Inactively holding a confusingly similar domain name can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the domain name in question, which displays an error message. See Compl. Ex. E. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent inactively holds the <tdbank.mom> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant also argues that the <tdbankk.com> domain name is a typosquatted version of Complainant’s TD BANK trademark, merely adding a second “k” to Complainant’s fully incorporated mark. A complainant may use typosquatting to demonstrate bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Under Armour, Inc. v. JEFF RANDALL, FA1410001585022 (Forum November 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s <unerarmour.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting of the complainant’s UNDER ARMOUR mark, which is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds further evidence of bad faith registration for the <tdbankk.com> domain name.
Respondent registered and continues to use the disputed domain names in bad faith. Complainant argues it is not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which Respondent would have been unaware of Complainant’s brands at the time the domain names were registered. At the time of registration of the domain names, Complainant alleges that Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of Complainant's trademarks and that registration of domain names containing well-known trademarks. However, the Panel disregards arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice as UDRP case precedent declines to find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge. See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."). While constructive notice may sometimes alone be regarded as insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, the Panel finds that a respondent possessing actual notice of a complainant’s marks may support a finding of bad faith. See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA1411001591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) (“This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and Respondent’s use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to and in competition with Complainant.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds Respondent’s actions are sufficient to establish the bad faith requirement under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <httpstd.com>, <httptdbank.com>, <tdbank.mom>, <tdbankk.com>, <tdcanadatrust.site>, <wwwtd.net>, and <wwwtdbank.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: November 13, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page