National Arbitration Forum

DECISION

Barclays Global Investors N.A. v. Chartwell Partners Inc.

Claim Number: FA0504000453964

PARTIES

Complainant is Barclays Global Investors N.A. (“Complainant”), represented by Melanie J. Lerch, of Loeb & Loeb LLP, 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4164. Respondent is Chartwell Partners Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Carlton T. Delfeld, 8430 Lauralwood Lane, Colorado Springs, CO 80919.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <isharestrategy.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

PANEL

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.

Steven L. Schwartz as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 8, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 11, 2005.

On April 14, 2005, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <isharestrategy.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On April 20, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 10, 2005 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@isharestrategy.com by e-mail.

An untimely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 16, 2005.

On May 17, 2005, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Steven L. Schwartz as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is the registered owner of the following trademark, which is registered on the Principal Register, and which Complainant has used continuously in commerce for the past four years:

ISHARES, Registration No. 2,422,249, in International Class 36, for the following goods and services: bank services, mutual fund investment advisory services, investment management services and financial services in the nature of pooled investment funds. Complainant’s first use of this mark in commerce was on May 15, 2000. Complainant filed for registration of the mark on August 20, 1999, and the mark was registered on the Principal Register on January 16, 2001. Complainant’s first use of this mark in commerce was on May 15, 2000.

Complainant also states that it currently has licensed use of the ISHARES mark to two other companies involved in bank services, mutual fund investment advisory services, investment management services and financial services, and plans to license the mark to additional parties.

These licensees use the mark in connection with over eighty funds. Complainant imposes, and vigorously enforces, strict standards on the use by its licensees of the ISHARES mark. Complainant has not licensed the mark to Respondent.

Complainant considers itself a world leader in the creation of investment strategies, with over 2,300 clients in 39 countries and total client assets of approximately $1.2 trillion. Complainant’s commitment to developing unique investment management opportunities began 30 years ago with the creation of the world’s first index strategy in 1971. Complainant’s services extend across the value chain of investing, supporting one of the broadest investment product lines in the financial industry. The unique scientific approach allows for risk-controlled variation of return expectations, which results in Complainant having index, enhanced index and active products that cover almost every trade-able asset class in the world. Complainant also provides important additional investment capabilities such as securities lending and portfolio transition services. No matter the specific service, Complainant’s ultimate goal is always to help ensure a secure financial future for the millions of people Complainant serves

Over the last three decades, Complainant has applied equal measures of science, creativity, and technology to the investment process to offer its clients something completely new: an investment opportunity that combines the best elements of stocks, mutual funds, and index investing. Easy to use and cost-effective, this new exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) family is called “iShares.” Complainant spends in excess of $20 million annually on marketing, web and advertisement for “iShares” ETFs. There are currently over 99 different ETFs in the “iShares” family, totaling approximately $120 billion as of March 31, 2005.

Complainant considers the disputed domain name, <isharestrategy.com>, to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark.

B. Respondent

Chartwell Partners is a registered investment advisor and financial publisher with a mission of educating investors on the best ways to build global portfolios. Its chosen core investment tool is exchange-traded funds. This model is made available by a subscription based newsletter called the Chartwell Advisor and a free marketing newsletter known as iShareStrategy. The iShares family of ETFs, developed by Barclays Global Investors, dominates the ETF industry and accounted for more than 80% of all net cash inflows into ETFs in 2004. In many ways, iShares has become synonymous with ETFs.

Barclays Global Investors (BGI) primarily markets its iShares through financial advisors and investment advisors and these advisors, in turn, market iShares to individual investors. This is BGI’s primary business model as evident from a review of <ishares.com>, Complainant’s domain.

In addition, BGI has initiated a campaign to publicly profile how specific financial advisors develop and implement investment strategies using iShares.

Chartwell displays prominent disclaimers and commentary for the purpose of advising visitors to its website, <isharestrategy.com>, stating that it is completely independent of BGI and that iShares is a trademark of BGI; and that isharestrategy and <isharestrategy.com> are independent and not affiliated with or endorsed by BGI. Respondent states that it chose the name “isharestrategy” because it is an apt description of its mission of sharing its strategy of building global portfolios using ETFs/iShares as a core investment tool.

Chartwell believes that it has made it clearly known in providing an advisory role in helping investors choose the ETFs and iShares that best fit their needs and that its name and activities are not in any way confusingly similar to Complainant or its mark. Respondent further states that it has never even been asked a question about whether it is any way related to iShares or BGI. Respondent states that its newsletters constantly remind and direct readers to contact BGI through <ishares.com> or their toll free number for information and a prospectus before investing.

Respondent states that it chose the name “isharestrategy” in good faith and for a legitimate purpose which is shared by BGI as evidenced by its support of financial advisors in promoting its products. BGI directly and materially benefits from its efforts due to the revenue stream generated from its subscribers purchasing ishares. Chartwell does not benefit in any way from subscriber purchases of iShares. The model for its business was in part derived from Dan Wiener’s newsletter “The Independent Advisor for Vanguard Investors” which helps investors choose the right Vanguard funds for their goals. Respondent compares the newsletter/website located at <fidelityinvestor.com> which does much the same for Fidelity fund investors.

Chartwell states that it has made good faith efforts to resolve the disputed domain when initially contacted by Complainant by making changes to its site content and strengthening language to make clear separation and independence from BGI Respondent has had several discussions with BGI representatives to make clear its intent and good faith and to clear up any misunderstandings. In the event that BGI wished to use <isharestrategy.com> for its own purposes, Respondent offered to make it available, though no specific request or offer was discussed.

Respondent states that it has clearly identified iShares as a protected trademark on its site home page and through language in disclaimers. Respondent states that iShares as a product is described, commented on, recommended or criticized in a myriad of venues both online and offline in addition to its own site. Magazines such as Forbes and Smart Money have dedicated long articles to the merits and problems with using iShares. Respondent maintains that the product, iShares, is clearly in the public domain and parties have the right to publish commentaries about iShares.

In effect, Respondent’s Chartwell Advisor report and its “isharestrategy” newsletter are no different than these publications which sell their publication for a specific subscription price. These publications are helping create an awareness of iShares and BGI cooperates with and supports their activities. Chartwell characterizes Complainant’s allegations that it is somehow gaining from BGI’s promotional activities on behalf of iShares as unfair. Respondent contends that it could easily be argued that Chartwell’s activities are consistent with BGI’s goals and that BGI is benefiting unfairly by Respondent’s activities as a commentator on and promoter of iShares.

Respondent contends that <isharestrategy.com> is not identical or confusingly similar to ISHARES, that the domain name was registered and is being used entirely in good faith, and that it is being used in a legitimate manner to offer an online venue and publications that provide commentary on iShares and other ETFs as well as other global investment opportunities.

Respondent has registered and is the owner of the disputed domain <isharestrategy.com>.

FINDINGS

Complainant is the owner of the mark, ISHARES, Registration No. 2,422,249, in International Class 36, for the following goods and services: bank services, mutual fund investment advisory services, investment management services and financial services in the nature of pooled investment funds. Complainant’s first use of this mark in commerce was on May 15, 2000. Complainant filed for registration of the mark on August 20, 1999, and the mark was registered on the Principal Register on January 16, 2001. Complainant’s first use of this mark in commerce was on May 15, 2000.

Complainant considers itself a world leader in the creation of investment strategies and employs the mark and its domain, <ishares.com>, in its business activities.

Complainant has licensed the use of the mark to two licensees. Complainant has not licensed the mark to Respondent.

Respondent is the owner of the disputed domain, <isharestrategy.com>.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

Procedural Issues

Respondent’s Response was received six days after the formal deadline set forth pursuant to ICANN Rule 5(a) and was not submitted in hard copy as required by ICANN Rule 5(b). It is within the Panel’s discretion whether or not to consider Respondent’s deficient Response in deciding this case. See Telstra Corp. v. Chu, D2000-0423 (WIPO June 21, 2000) (finding that any weight to be given to the lateness of the response is solely in the discretion of the panel); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (without an adequate timely filed response, all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint will be taken as true); but see Gaiam, Inc. v. Nielsen, FA 112469 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 2, 2002) (“In the interest of having claims decided on the merits and not by default and because Complainant has not been prejudiced in the presentation of its case by the late submission, Respondent’s opposition documents are accepted as timely.”). The Panel has elected to consider Respondent’s untimely response and finds that Complainant has not and will not be prejudiced given the Panel’s decision in this matter.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts that it has established rights in the ISHARES mark through registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,422,249 issued January 16, 2001). See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office creates a presumption of rights in a mark).

The Panel finds that Respondent’s <isharestrategy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ISHARES mark because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and omits the letter “s” while adding the generic term “strategy” and the generic top-level domain “.com” to Complainant’s mark. The Panel concludes that such minor changes are not enough to overcome a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

See Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the deliberate introduction of errors or changes, such as the addition of a fourth “w” or the omission of periods or other such generic typos do not change respondent’s infringement on a core trademark held by the complainant); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”). Further, the appending of “STRATEGY” on the end of the ISHARESTRATEGY.COM domain name does not save it from being confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Gallup, Inc. v. Obinabo, FA 100756 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2002) (“The addition of a descriptive or generic term to another’s trademark does not create a distinct mark, nor does it defeat a claim of confusing similarity.”); see also Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Lang, D2000-1736 (WIPO Apr. 30, 2001).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has no bona fide rights in the disputed domain name. Respondent holds no registered U.S. trademark in the names “ishare,” “ishares,” “isharestrategy” or in the disputed domain name. Complainant’s first use of the ISHARES mark predates Respondent’s use of “isharestrategy” by at least a year. Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the <isharestrategy.com> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ISHARES mark, to operate a website that apparently promotes both Complainant’s exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) as well as financial instruments offered by other competing firms. The Panel finds that such use is not a use in connection with 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 Nike, Inc. v. Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding no “bona fide” offering of goods or services where the respondent used the complainant’s mark without authorization to attract Internet users to its website, which offered both the complainant’s products and those of the complainant’s competitors); see also Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Ostanik, D2000-1611 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the <pitneybowe.com> domain name where the respondent purports to resell original Pitney Bowes’ equipment on its website, as well as goods of other competitors of the complainant).

Respondent is not commonly known by the name “isharestrategy.” Rather, Respondent does conduct business and is commonly known by the names “Chartwell Partners” and “Chartwell Advisor,” as evidenced by the WHOIS information for <isharestrategy.com> as well as the content of Respondent’s website. To this end, Respondent has at least two other domain names registered, <chartwellinvest.com> and <chartwelladvisor.com> which both point to the same website to which the disputed domain name points. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in the respondent’s WHOIS information implies that the respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply);

see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Am. West Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (found that since Respondent listed its name as being “Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders” in the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent was not commonly known by the domain name <awvacations.com>); see also WV Educ. Broad. Auth. v. Thompson, FA 196011 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2003) (held that the WHOIS information failed to establish that Respondent was commonly known by the <wvpbs.org> domain name and did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)).

Respondent contends that it is using the <isharestrategy.com> domain name to promote Complainant’s ETFs, which it describes as its chosen core investment tool, in connection with its investment advising and financial publishing services. Respondent is trading on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark by not only including Complainant’s mark in the domain name, but including it as the first word, and, hence, the first and most likely word that target consumers would type in when searching for Complainant’s products and services. The Panel does not find that such use is in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Cf. Verkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of services bestowed rights and legitimate interests in the domain name).

Furthermore, Respondent does not have a license to use Complainant’s mark in contrast to those who Complainant has specifically given such use by way of written license. “[I]n the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those trademarks, it is clear that no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could be claimed by Respondent.” Guerlain S.A. v. PeiKang, D2000-0055 (WIPO Mar. 27, 2000); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark or never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).

The fact that both Complainant and Respondent may benefit from Respondent’s promotion of Complainant’s products and services is not to be construed as tacit consent to Respondent’s continued use of the disputed domain name: Complainant never gave Respondent permission to use the iShares brand. See Heel Quik, Inc. v. Goldman, et al., FA 92527 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 1, 2000) (“The fact that the Respondents may have had a close working relationship with the Complainant, in the absence of an express written agreement to the contrary, does not give the Respondents any rights or interest in the domain name. Nor do the doctrines of waiver and [e]stoppel bar Complainant from asserting its rights to the domain name.”).

Respondent’s use does not fall within any protected “fair use.” To establish that it is making “fair use” of this domain name, Respondent would need to show that its use is “otherwise than as a mark . . . which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party . . .” Tall Oaks Publ’g, Inc. v. Nat’l Trade Publ’ns, Inc., FA 94346 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2000) (quoting Trademark Act, Section 33(b)(4)). Furthermore, Respondent is not seeking to provide an online forum for criticizing Complainant, such as might entitle him to use the disputed domain name. Although Respondent argues that both parties are obtaining benefit from its use of the mark, Respondent is deriving direct economic benefit by misleadingly diverting consumers from Complainant’s web site and services through the registration and use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s internationally recognized ISHARES trademark.

The Panel concludes, as well, that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s ISHARES mark because the mark is registered throughout the world, including in Respondent’s country of residence, and the mark is fanciful. The Panel, therefore, infers that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the mark. See Alcoa Inc. v. Dinoia, FA 227654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 3, 2004); 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).

Moreover, it may be presumed that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s iShares products and services when it registered the disputed domain name. See Digi Int’l 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 Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (held that because the link between Complainant’s mark and the content advertised on Respondent’s website was obvious, Respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name.”).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that it offered to reimburse Respondent for any reasonable registration fees in exchange for the <isharestrategy.com> domain name. Respondent instead demanded an amount in excess of any reasonable calculation of costs and has not only continued but expanded its use of the mark on its domain site. Thus, the Panel interprets such conduct as evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. Servability Ltd, D2001-0243 (WIPO Apr. 5, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent rejected the complainant’s nominal offer of the domain in lieu of greater consideration); see also World Wrestling Fed’n Entmt., Inc. v. Bosman, D99-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) (finding that the respondent used the domain name in bad faith because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of any out-of-pocket costs).

The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to promote both Complainant’s ETFs as well as financial products and services of Complainant’s competitors constitutes disruption and is evidence that Respondent registered and used the <isharestrategy.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Wall v. Silva, FA 105899 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 29, 2002) (finding that despite respondent’s claim that it used the <josephinewall.com> domain name, which was identical to complainant’s JOSEPHINE WALL mark, to help complainant become popular in the United States, the Panel found that the respondent’s use of the domain name to sell the complainant’s artwork in the United States constituted disruption pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Nokia Corp. v. Lakhani, D2000-0833 (WIPO Oct. 19, 2000) (transferring <nokias.com> from the respondent cellular phone dealer to the complainant).

The Panel also finds that because Respondent’s <isharestrategy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ISHARES mark, consumers accessing Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, the Panel may conclude that Respondent’s commercial use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Fossil Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by registering the <fossilwatch.com> domain name and using it to sell various watch brands, including the complainant’s goods and the goods of the complainant’s competitors, where the respondent was not authorized to sell the complainant’s goods); see also AT&T Corp. v. RealTime Internet.com Inc., D2001-1487 (WIPO May 1, 2002) (“[U]se of domain names to sell Complainant’s goods and services without Complainant's authority . . . is bad faith use of a confusingly similar domain name.”).

Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ISHARES mark due to Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO. Moreover, the Panel infers that Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark due to the obvious connection between the content featured on Respondent’s website and Complainant’s business. Thus, the Panel concludes that registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to another’s mark despite actual or constructive knowledge of the mark holder’s rights is tantamount to bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum 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.”); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“[T]he 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 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”).

Additionally, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a disclaimer on its website is insufficient to negate Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <isharestrategy.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Ciccone v. Parisi (Madonna.com), D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2000) (“Respondent’s use of a disclaimer on its website is insufficient to avoid a finding of bad faith. First, the disclaimer may be ignored or misunderstood by Internet users. Second, a disclaimer does nothing to dispel initial interest confusion that is inevitable from the respondent’s actions.”); see also Thomas & Betts Int’l v. Power Cabling Corp., Inc., AF-0274 (eResolution Oct. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith based upon initial interest confusion despite disclaimer and link to the complainant’s website on the respondent’s website).

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <isharestrategy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Steven L. Schwartz, Panelist

Dated: May 31, 2005