Teleflora LLC v. Valdosta.biz
Claim
Number: FA0504000462486
Complainant is Teleflora LLC (“Complainant”), represented
by Sarah Takasugi, 11444 Olympic Boulevard, 10th Floor,
Los Angeles, CA, 90064-1544. Respondent
is Valdosta.biz (“Respondent”), 406
Northside Dr., Suite 1, Valdosta, GA, 316002.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <eleflora.com>, <etleflora.com>,
<releflora.com>, <teeflora.com>, <teelflora.com>,
<tekeflora.com>, <teledlora.com>, <telefkora.com>,
<teleflira.com>, <telefloa.com>, <telefloar.com>,
<telefloea.com>, <teleflors.com>, <teleflota.com>,
<teleflpra.com>, <teleflra.com>, <teleflroa.com>,
<telefzora.com>, <teleglora.com>, <telfelora.com>,
<telrflora.com>, <telwflora.com>, <tezeflora.com>,
<tleeflora.com>, <tleflora.com>, <trleflora.com>,
<twleflora.com>, <yeleflora.com>, <telefolra.com>,
<telelora.com> and <telelfora.com>, registered with Go
Daddy Software, Inc., and <taleflora.com>, <teeeleflora.com>,
<telefflora.com>, <teleflara.com>, <teleflera.com>,
<telefllora.com>, <teleflooora.com>, <telefloraa.com>,
<teleflori.com>, <telefloro.com>, <telefloru.com>,
<teliflora.com>, <teloflora.com>, <tileflora.com>,
<toleflora.com>, <tuleflora.com>, <teluflora.com>,
<tteleflora.com> and <wwwteleflorist.com>, registered
with Dotster, Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically April
11, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint April
13, 2005.
On
April 12, 2005, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the domain names <eleflora.com>, <etleflora.com>,
<releflora.com>, <teeflora.com>, <teelflora.com>,
<tekeflora.com>, <teledlora.com>, <telefkora.com>,
<teleflira.com>, <telefloa.com>, <telefloar.com>,
<telefloea.com>, <teleflors.com>, <teleflota.com>,
<teleflpra.com>, <teleflra.com>, <teleflroa.com>,
<telefzora.com>, <teleglora.com>, <telfelora.com>,
<telrflora.com>, <telwflora.com>, <tezeflora.com>,
<tleeflora.com>, <tleflora.com>, <trleflora.com>,
<twleflora.com>, <yeleflora.com>, <telefolra.com>,
<telelora.com> and <telelfora.com> are registered
with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the names. Go Daddy Software, Inc. verified
that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, Inc. registration agreement
and thereby has 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 13, 2005, Dotster, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration
Forum that the domain names <taleflora.com>, <teeeleflora.com>,
<telefflora.com>, <teleflara.com>, <teleflera.com>,
<telefllora.com>, <teleflooora.com>, <telefloraa.com>,
<teleflori.com>, <telefloro.com>, <telefloru.com>,
<teliflora.com>, <teloflora.com>, <tileflora.com>,
<toleflora.com>, <tuleflora.com>, <teluflora.com>,
<tteleflora.com> and <wwwteleflorist.com> are
registered with Dotster, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the names. Dotster, Inc. verified that
Respondent is bound by the Dotster, Inc. registration agreement and thereby has
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 21, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
May 11, 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@eleflora.com, postmaster@etleflora.com
postmaster@releflora.com, postmaster@taleflora.com, postmaster@teeeleflora.com,
postmaster@teeflora.com, postmaster@teelflora.com, postmaster@tekeflora.com,
postmaster@teledlora.com postmaster@telefflora.com, postmaster@telefkora.com,
postmaster@teleflara.com, postmaster@teleflera.com, postmaster@teleflira.com,
postmaster@telefllora.com, postmaster@telefloa.com, postmaster@telefloar.com,
postmaster@telefloea.com, postmaster@teleflooora.com,
postmaster@telefloraa.com, postmaster@teleflori.com, postmaster@telefloro.com,
postmaster@teleflors.com, postmaster@telefloru.com, postmaster@teleflota.com,
postmaster@teleflpra.com, postmaster@teleflra.com, postmaster@teleflroa.com,
postmaster@telefzora.com, postmaster@teleglora.com, postmaster@telfelora.com,
postmaster@teliflora.com, postmaster@teloflora.com, postmaster@telrflora.com,
postmaster@telwflora.com, postmaster@tezeflora.com, postmaster@tileflora.com,
postmaster@tleeflora.com, postmaster@tleflora.com, postmaster@toleflora.com,
postmaster@trleflora.com, postmaster@tuleflora.com, postmaster@twleflora.com,
postmaster@yeleflora.com, postmaster@telefolra.com, postmaster@telelora.com,
postmaster@teluflora.com, postmaster@tteleflora.com,
postmaster@wwwteleflorist.com and postmaster@telelfora.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National
Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent
Default.
On
May 16, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn
Marks Johnson as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision
based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN
Rules, the National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. The multiple domain names that Respondent
registered <eleflora.com>, <etleflora.com>, <releflora.com>,
<taleflora.com>, <teeeleflora.com>, <teeflora.com>,
<teelflora.com>, <tekeflora.com>, <teledlora.com>,
<telefflora.com>, <telefkora.com>, <teleflara.com>,
<teleflera.com>, <teleflira.com>, <telefllora.com>,
<telefloa.com>, <telefloar.com>, <telefloea.com>,
<teleflooora.com>, <telefloraa.com>, <teleflori.com>,
<telefloro.com>, <teleflors.com>, <telefloru.com>,
<teleflota.com>, <teleflpra.com>, <teleflra.com>,
<teleflroa.com>, <telefzora.com>, <teleglora.com>,
<telfelora.com>, <teliflora.com>, <teloflora.com>,
<telrflora.com>, <telwflora.com>, <tezeflora.com>,
<tileflora.com>, <tleeflora.com>, <tleflora.com>,
<toleflora.com>, <trleflora.com>, <tuleflora.com>,
<twleflora.com>, <yeleflora.com>, <telefolra.com>,
<telelora.com>, <teluflora.com>, <tteleflora.com>,
<wwwteleflorist.com> and <telelfora.com> are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEFLORA mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the <eleflora.com>, <etleflora.com>, <releflora.com>,
<taleflora.com>, <teeeleflora.com>, <teeflora.com>,
<teelflora.com>, <tekeflora.com>, <teledlora.com>,
<telefflora.com>, <telefkora.com>, <teleflara.com>,
<teleflera.com>, <teleflira.com>, <telefllora.com>,
<telefloa.com>, <telefloar.com>, <telefloea.com>,
<teleflooora.com>, <telefloraa.com>, <teleflori.com>,
<telefloro.com>, <teleflors.com>, <telefloru.com>,
<teleflota.com>, <teleflpra.com>, <teleflra.com>,
<teleflroa.com>, <telefzora.com>, <teleglora.com>,
<telfelora.com>, <teliflora.com>, <teloflora.com>,
<telrflora.com>, <telwflora.com>, <tezeflora.com>,
<tileflora.com>, <tleeflora.com>, <tleflora.com>,
<toleflora.com>, <trleflora.com>, <tuleflora.com>,
<twleflora.com>, <yeleflora.com>, <telefolra.com>,
<telelora.com>, <teluflora.com>, <tteleflora.com>,
<wwwteleflorist.com> and <telelfora.com> domain
names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <eleflora.com>,
<etleflora.com>, <releflora.com>, <taleflora.com>,
<teeeleflora.com>, <teeflora.com>, <teelflora.com>,
<tekeflora.com>, <teledlora.com>, <telefflora.com>,
<telefkora.com>, <teleflara.com>, <teleflera.com>,
<teleflira.com>, <telefllora.com>, <telefloa.com>,
<telefloar.com>, <telefloea.com>, <teleflooora.com>,
<telefloraa.com>, <teleflori.com>, <telefloro.com>,
<teleflors.com>, <telefloru.com>, <teleflota.com>,
<teleflpra.com>, <teleflra.com>, <teleflroa.com>,
<telefzora.com>, <teleglora.com>, <telfelora.com>,
<teliflora.com>, <teloflora.com>, <telrflora.com>,
<telwflora.com>, <tezeflora.com>, <tileflora.com>,
<tleeflora.com>, <tleflora.com>, <toleflora.com>,
<trleflora.com>, <tuleflora.com>, <twleflora.com>,
<yeleflora.com>, <telefolra.com>, <telelora.com>,
<teluflora.com>, <tteleflora.com>, <wwwteleflorist.com>
and <telelfora.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant is a
well-known floral delivery clearinghouse and wire service with the largest
network of florists in the world.
Complainant has used the TELEFLORA mark in connection with its various
floral-related products and accessories since at least as early as 1938. Complainant is also the owner of numerous
domain names including <teleflora.com>, <teleflora.net>,
<teleflora.org>, <teleflora.biz>, <teleflora.info>, <telaflora.com>,
<telaflora.net>, <telaflora.org>, <teleflorist.com>, <telaflorist.com>,
<telaflorist.net>, <telaflorist.org>, <teleflora-flowers.com>
and <telefora.com>, which are used in connection with Complainant’s
services.
Complainant
registered its TELEFLORA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. Nos. 776,336 issued September 1, 1964, and 1,340,801
issued June 11, 1985).
Respondent
registered the disputed domain names between September 27 and October 1,
2003. The disputed domain names resolve
to a website for a company called “Internet Florists,” which provides floral
delivery services in direct competition with Complainant.
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."
In view of
Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to
paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a)
of the Policy requires Complainant to 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 to 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.
Complainant
established using extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has rights to and
legitimate interests in the TELEFLORA mark through registration of the mark
with the USPTO and by use of the mark in commerce since 1938. See 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); see also Men’s
Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under
U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are
inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”).
The domain names
that Respondent registered are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEFLORA
mark since the disputed domain names are various typosquatted spellings of
Complainant’s mark, incorporating minor changes such as adding, deleting,
transposing or replacing letters. The
disputed domain names also add the generic top-level domain “.com” to
Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds
that such minor changes are insufficient to overcome a finding of confusing
similarity between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s mark pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 149187 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Apr. 28, 2003) (finding that the
respondent's <marrriott.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the
complainant's MARRIOTT mark because "Respondent's typosquatting, by
its definition, renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's
mark"); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Party Night, Inc., FA 114546 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2002) (finding the
disputed domain name was a simple misspelling of the complainant’s mark and was
a classic example of typosquatting, which “renders the domain name
confusingly similar to the altered famous mark”); 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.”).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant
established that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark
contained in its entirety, with various misspelling, in the disputed domain
names. Complainant alleges that
Respondent has no such rights or interests.
Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint. Thus, the Panel accepts all reasonable
allegations and assertions set forth by Complainant as true and accurate. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to
[contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of
complainant’s assertion in this regard.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000)
(finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s
allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Complainant
asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names, and Respondent, in not submitting a response, has failed to rebut
this assertion. Thus, the Panel finds
that Respondent’s failure to respond is further evidence that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii). See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp.,
D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec.
31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to
meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”).
Respondent is
using the confusingly similar disputed domain names to divert Internet users
who seek Complainant’s services and goods to a website that provides a
competing floral-delivery service. Such
use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Winmark Corp. v. In The Zone, FA 128652 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002)
(finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain
name that used the complainant’s mark to redirect Internet users to a
competitor’s website); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA
157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s
appropriation of the complainant’s mark to market products that compete with
the complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and
services).
Furthermore,
nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is either commonly known by the
disputed domain names nothing suggests that Respondent is authorized to
register domain names featuring any version of Complainant’s TELEFLORA mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has
not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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 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).
Moreover, the fact that Respondent’s domain names are merely typosquatted
variations of Complainant’s TELEFLORA mark is evidence that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii). See IndyMac Bank
F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain names because it "engaged in the practice of
typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access
Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's
mark by typing the letter 'x' instead of the letter 'c'"); see also LTD
Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA
165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>,
<ltdcommmodities.com> and <ltdcommodaties.com> disputed domain
names were typosquatted versions of the complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark
and "Respondent's 'typosquatting' is evidence that Respondent lacks rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names").
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is
using confusingly similar domain names to divert Internet users who seek
Complainant’s services to a competing floral-delivery service website. The Panel finds that such use constitutes
commercial disruption and supports findings of bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v.
S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the
respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that
competes with the complainant’s business); see also Puckett v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that
the respondent diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website
in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Panel infers
that Respondent either receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users
to the competing floral-delivery website or else operates this competing
service itself. Because the disputed
domain sites that Respondent registered are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s TELEFLORA mark, consumers accessing Respondent’s domain names may
become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting
website. Thus, Respondent’s commercial
use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Qwest
Communications Int’l Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA
187431 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent's
attempt to commercially benefit from the misleading domain name is evidence of
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Drs.
Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli,
FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the
respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own
website for commercial gain); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex
Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the
respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name
to attract Internet users to its commercial website).
Furthermore,
Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual or constructive
knowledge of Complainant’s TELEFLORA mark due to Complainant’s registration of
the mark with the USPTO. Moreover, the
Panel infers that Respondent registered the domain names with actual knowledge
of Complainant’s rights in the mark due to the obvious connection between
Respondent’s website and Complainant’s business. Registration of domain names that are 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 fact that Respondent’s domain names are merely typosquatted variations of
Complainant’s TELEFLORA mark is evidence that Respondent registered and used
the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Zone
Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding that
the respondent registered and used the
<zonelarm.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii) because the name was merely a typosquatted version of the
complainant's ZONEALARM mark); see also Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a
typosquatted version of Complainant's DERMALOGICA mark and
stating, "[t]yposquatting itself is evidence of bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)").
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <eleflora.com>, <etleflora.com>, <releflora.com>,
<taleflora.com>, <teeeleflora.com>, <teeflora.com>,
<teelflora.com>, <tekeflora.com>, <teledlora.com>,
<telefflora.com>, <telefkora.com>, <teleflara.com>,
<teleflera.com>, <teleflira.com>, <telefllora.com>,
<telefloa.com>, <telefloar.com>, <telefloea.com>,
<teleflooora.com>, <telefloraa.com>, <teleflori.com>,
<telefloro.com>, <teleflors.com>, <telefloru.com>,
<teleflota.com>, <teleflpra.com>, <teleflra.com>,
<teleflroa.com>, <telefzora.com>, <teleglora.com>,
<telfelora.com>, <teliflora.com>, <teloflora.com>,
<telrflora.com>, <telwflora.com>, <tezeflora.com>,
<tileflora.com>, <tleeflora.com>, <tleflora.com>,
<toleflora.com>, <trleflora.com>, <tuleflora.com>,
<twleflora.com>, <yeleflora.com>, <telefolra.com>,
<telelora.com>, <teluflora.com>, <tteleflora.com>,
<wwwteleflorist.com> and <telelfora.com> domain names
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: May 31, 2005.
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page
National Arbitration Forum