ACE Limited v. Compel Corporation
Claim Number: FA0508000545000
PARTIES
Complainant
is ACE Limited (“Complainant”),
represented by Bruce D. George of Woodcock Washburn LLP, One Liberty
Place, 46th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Respondent is Compel Corporation (“Respondent”),
24 Charlton Drive, Cheltenham, Glos GL53 8ES, Cheltenham, GB.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <aceinsurances.com>,
registered with Enom, Inc.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.
The
Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
August 19, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 24, 2005.
On
August 22, 2005, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration
Forum that the <aceinsurances.com>
domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name.Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the
Enom, 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
August 29, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September
19, 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@aceinsurances.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 19,
2005.
On September 27, 2005, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the National Arbitration Forum
appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The
Complainant is a large insurance company which operates in almost 50 countries
and that has been using the ACE trademark in one form or another since 1985.
The
Complainant contends that Respondent has taken this mark and combined it with
the word “insurances” to make the domain name <aceinsurances.com>,
which is confusingly similar to its trademark.
It also contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in the domain name and that Respondent registered and has been using it in bad
faith by trading on Complainant’s name and standing in the insurance industry,
creating confusion in the minds of potential internet customers and diverting
them to competitors of Complainant, who are offering the same services.
B. Respondent
The
Respondent is a company that formed another company named “WiseMoney.com Ltd”
in 1998 to offer online financial services including insurance. To assist WiseMoney.com Ltd’s business on
the internet, Respondent registered a number of domain names, including the
contentious one—<aceinsurances.com>.
The
Respondent contends that this name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s
ACE trademark, that it is made up of two generic words, and that it,
Respondent, had wanted a name starting with the letter “A” for several of its
domain names. It contends that all of
the facts including the formation and conduct of its business and the contents
of the homepage of <aceinsurances.com> give it a legitimate
interests in the domain name and show that it has acted in good faith.
FINDINGS
The Complainant has established both
registered and unregistered trademark rights in the name “ACE.” The unregistered trademark rights were
acquired from the use of the name “ACE” in Complainant’s international
insurance business since 1985.
The Complainant’s United States
trademarks are as follows: ACE (word mark), U.S. Reg. No. 2,778,828, filed on
January 9, 1999, and issued on November 4, 2003; ACE ADVANTAGE (word mark),
U.S. Reg. No. 2,106,692, filed on June 14, 1996, and issued on October 21,
1997, ACE RISK MANAGEMENT (word mark), U.S. Reg. No. 2,879,938, filed on
December 18, 2001, and issued on August 31, 2004; and ACE (with logo), U.S.
Reg. No. 2,956,379, filed on November 5, 1998, and issued on May 31, 2005.
The Complainant’s CTM Marks are as
follows: ACE, CTM, Reg. No. 661,827, filed on October 17, 1997, and registered
on July 17, 2003; and ACE EUROPEAN GROUP, CTM, Reg. No. 2,305,787, filed on July
18, 2001, and registered on March 28, 2003.
The Complainant’s United Kingdom
trademarks are as follows: ACE (stylized), UK Reg. No. 2,148,430, filed on
October 17, 1997, and registered on June 9, 2000; ACE (stylized), UK Reg. No.
2148431, filed on October 17, 1997, and registered on October 20, 2000; ACE
(stylized with globe device), UK Reg. No. 2148427, filed on October 17, 1997,
and registered on June 9, 2000; and ACE (with logo), UK Reg. No. 2,273,174,
filed on June 21, 2001, and registered on December 21, 2001.
The Complainant also owns a minimum of 72 trademark
registrations in 33 countries for trademarks including the term “ACE.”
The Respondent registered the domain name
<aceinsurances.com> on February 15, 1999.
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.
The Panel finds that the domain name <aceinsurances.com>
is confusingly similar to all of the registered United States, European, and
United Kingdom trademarks relied upon by Complainant that are referred to in
detail above and that consist of the word “ACE” as a word mark, with logo,
stylized, or stylized with logo.
That is so in each case because the
domain name incorporates the entirety of the trademark, namely the word “ACE,”
which is registered for a wide variety of insurance services. Where a domain name incorporates the whole
of a trademark and spells it the same way and such that it is pronounced the
same, which is an important first step towards concluding that the domain name
is similar to the trademark.
It is true that in this case, the word
“insurances” has been added to the trademark to create the domain name, but
that does not detract from the similarity of the domain name to the
trademark. It has been held many times
that it does not absolve a domain name registrant on this issue if, as in the
present case, it takes the entirety of a trademark and then adds a descriptive
or generic word that simply describes the business or trade of the trademark
owner. Thus, in Rada Mfg.Co. v. J. Mark Press,
D2004-1060 (WIPO Feb. 24, 2005) the evidence showed that the respondent had
taken the trademark RADA, a trademark owned by the complainant that made
cutlery, and had simply made up a series of domain names such as
<radacutlerysales.com> and <radaknives.com>. It was held that such additions did not
sufficiently distinguish the domain names from the trademark and that the words
that were added exacerbated the similarity, for it was widely known that Rada
made cutlery and knives.
Likewise, in the present case, the
addition of the word “insurances” to the ACE trademark does not distinguish the
domain name from the trademark, for offering insurances is exactly what the
trademark owner does.
A similar result was reached in Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing,
FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the
word “assurance” to the complainant’s AIG trademark to create the domain name
<aigassurance.com> failed to differentiate the domain name sufficiently
from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the term “assurances” related
directly to the complainant’s business).
The fact that the domain name also
includes the generic top-level domain “.com”
does not detract form the conclusion that the domain name is similar to
the trademark. This has been decided on many occasions, for example Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding
that<pomellato.com> was identical to the complainant’s mark because the
generic top-level domain “.com” after the name POMELLATO was not relevant).
The Panel also finds for the same reasons
that the domain name is also confusingly similar to the common law trademarks
that Complainant has acquired since 1985 in the United States and Europe in the
word “ACE” where used in connection with insurance services.
The Respondent has argued that the domain
name is not confusingly similar to the trademarks and cites in support of this
proposition the decision in Qwest
Commc’ns Int’l Inc. v. QC Publ’g Group Inc., FA 286032 (Nat. Arb. Forum,
July 23, 2004). The Panel does not
agree with that conclusion, for the case held that the <qwestcorp.com>
domain name was confusingly similar
to the QWEST trademark. It is true that
the complainant failed to have the domain name transferred, but it failed for
an entirely different reason. The pivotal finding was that the complainant’s
QWEST trademark was “limited to its application to the telecommunications
field,” whereas the respondent was using the domain name in the entirely
different field of magazine publishing.
In the present case, however, Complainant’s trademarks are registered
and used in connection with insurance and it is in insurance that Respondent is
also using the domain name.
Clearly, the trademarks relied on are
trademarks in which Complainant has rights, for it has been held many times
that registration with trademark authorities such as the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is sufficient to establish rights in the mark
for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
e.g., Innomed Techs. Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Feb.
18, 2004); Vivendi Universal Games v.
XBNetVentures Inc., FA 1988803 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003).
Unregistered trademark rights have also
consistently been held to be a sufficient basis to meet the requirements of
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Applying the balance of probabilities,
the ACE ADVANTAGE, ACE RISK MANAGEMENT, and ACE EUROPEAN GROUP trademarks are
probably not confusingly similar to the contentious domain name.
It is noted that the European CTM
trademark, Reg. No. 661,827, is registered not in the name of Complainant but
in the name of ACE European Markets Insurance Limited. However, it has been
held that registration in the name of a subsidiary or an associated company or
an individual associated with a complainant is sufficient for the purposes of
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DigiPoll Ltd v. Kumar D2004-0993 (WIPO Feb. 3, 2005).
Accordingly, Complainant has established
registered trademark rights and unregistered trademark rights sufficient to
meet the requirements of the Policy.
In the present case, Complainant has made
out a prima facie case, but only a prima facie
case, by showing in its submissions and the evidence exhibited to it that
Respondent is using Complainant’s ACE trademark together with the services
relating to its registration, namely ‘insurances,’ in its <aceinsurances.com>
domain name, and that it is using that domain name to solicit business for
parties other than Complainant.
In particular, Complainant has made out a
prima facie case that the modus operandi of Respondent amounts to
diverting internet users and potential customers away from Complainant to its
competitors.
Such conduct has consistently been viewed
in UDRP proceedings as negating the notion of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial
or fair use. See Big Dog Holdings, Inc v. Day, FA 093554
(Nat. Arb. Forum, Mar. 9, 2000); Ameritrade
Holdings Corp. v. Polllansky, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Jan. 11, 2002); DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v.
BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Apr. 9, 2002); Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA
145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003).
In opposition to that prima facie case, Respondent has submitted a sustained response
and in its turn has also exhibited a quantity of evidence, all of which the
Panel has carefully considered. In
particular, the Panel has considered Respondent’s explanation for using the expression
“ACE INSURANCES” and its contentions about the meaning of that expression. The question for the Panel is whether
Respondent has shown by that response that it has, within the provisions of
Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
The Panel’s conclusion is that it is not
satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Respondent has made out that
case.
In its submission and evidence,
Respondent relies upon a general argument of legitimacy and also specifically
relies on each of the provisions of Policy ¶ 4(c). The Panel will look at each of these defences in turn.
The Respondent’s general argument is
twofold. First, it says that the domain
name is legitimate, for it merely combines two generic words, the word “ace,”
which has a variety of common meanings such as “first-rate,” and the word
“insurances.” Secondly, and in the only
explanation of why the word “ace” was chosen at all, it says that the domain
name exists to promote Complainant’s associated company WiseMoney.com Ltd,
which is “alphabetically challenged,” meaning that it starts with the letter
“W.” A name starting with the letter
“A,” namely “ACE,” is said to have been chosen so that internet directories
would list it more propitiously than they would if it were listed under
“WiseMoney.” In other words, Respondent
says that it has an interest in the domain name because the name is convenient
in view of its spelling, and the interest thus created is legitimate.
As to the first of these arguments, it is
not correct to say that merely because two generic words are put together to
form a domain name, the name thus created is automatically
unchallengeable. It is true that there
will be cases where that will be the result.
See, e.g., Rollerblade,
Inc. v. CBNO, D2000-00427 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2000); Pet Warehouse v. Pets.Com Inc,
D2000-0105 (WIPO Apr.13, 2000); and Successful
Money Mgmt. Seminars, Inc. v. Direct
Mail Express, FA 964557 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Mar. 7, 2001). The case cited by
Respondent, Soccerplex.Inc v. NBA inc.,
FA 94361 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 25, 2000) is another case in point. So Respondent is correct on the general
principle involved.
Those cases were decided as they were,
however, because the generic words used were not identified specifically with
the respective complainants and their business.
In the present dispute, that is not the
case, for the term “aceinsurances” is a combination of the actual name of
Complainant and its business. Together,
the two words clearly identify Complainant because it is an international
insurance company of that name known to be in the field of insurance. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the
domain name is legitimate simply because it is made up from generic words.
As to Respondent’s second argument, the
Panel will assume for present purposes that the reason given by Respondent for
registering the name “aceinsurances” is true, i.e. that it was convenient to
choose an appropriate word starting with the letter “A.” although no reason was
given as to why that word had necessarily to be “ace.”
That reason, however, is not a
justification for appropriating another’s trademark and cannot make its use
legitimate.
Nor can it make legitimate the
appropriation of another’s trademark, incorporating it as part of a confusingly
similar domain name and using it in the same field of business as that covered
by the trademark owner.
That is particularly so on the
circumstances of the present case.
Respondent operates in the United Kingdom and derives 98% of its revenue
from “UK sources.” It formed WiseMoney.com
Ltd on February 6, 1998. It registered
the contentious domain name on February 16, 1999. Prior to that event, however, according to Complainant’s Exhibit
3, on October 17, 1997, and over a year before the domain name was registered,
Complainant filed applications numbered 2,148,427, 2,148,430, and 2,148,431
with the UK Patent Office for the registration of the ACE trademark in
connection with “insurance services and
reinsurance services.” The evidence is
also that Complainant had been operating in insurance in the UK since 1997.
On November 28, 1997, the first decision
of the English High Court was delivered in the One in a Million case, 1998 FSR 265, after which it was a matter of
public notoriety that registering a domain name which was the same as a registered
trademark could make the registration of the domain name a breach of the Trade
Marks Act and an actionable passing-off for which the registrant of the domain
name would be liable.
According to Complainant’s exhibit 3, the UK trademark
number 2,148,427 was registered by the Patent Office on June 9, 2000, number
2,148,430 was also registered on June 9, 2000, and number 2,148,431 was
registered on October 20, 2000.
The conclusion that the Panel draws from this
history is that at least from the dates of the applications for registration of
the trademarks, Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant’s interest in
the marks when used in insurance and re-insurance, and that it had constructive
notice of that fact on February 16, 1999 when it registered the domain name.
Even if Respondent did not have
constructive notice of Complainant’s trademark applications, it had
constructive notice of the trademarks themselves, at least from October 20,
2000. Since then Respondent, in using
the domain name has been in breach of Section 10(2) of the UK Trade Marks Act
1994. That is so because within the
meaning of Section 10(2) of the Act, the contentious domain name is “similar to
the trademark,” it has been used in relation to services identical to those for
which the trademark is registered, namely insurance, and in circumstances where
because of that very fact there has been “a likelihood of confusion on the part
of the public.” That being so, it
cannot be said that the rights and interests in the domain name are legitimate.
For these reasons, the Panel concludes
that Respondent has not made out its general argument that it has a right or
legitimate interest in the domain name.
Bona fide
offering of goods and services.
The Respondent then mounts a series of
particular arguments that it comes within each of the sub-paragraphs of Policy
¶ 4(c).
The Respondent first maintains that
within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), it used the domain name in connection with
a bona fide offering of goods and
services and that it was doing so before notice of the dispute.
In support of this, it says that it has
over 300 “generic” websites that do not target any known branded
organisations. It also asserts that it
has received several prestigious awards for its websites and that it has never
received a complaint other than the present one.
The Panel accepts all of that, but its
enquiry is limited to whether <aceinsurances.com> alone has been
used for a bona fide offering of goods and services. That requires the Panel to reach conclusions on what the
intentions of Respondent were when it in effect chose the name “Ace Insurances”
to solicit insurance business. That
conclusion can be reached only by an appraisal of the facts as they have been
demonstrated on the evidence.
The facts are that, as has been shown
above, the domain name was registered 16 months after application was made for
the registration of the UK trademarks.
Further, the evidence is that Complainant
filed its application for the United States registration of the ACE trademark
in insurance on January 9, 1999, and that a month later Respondent registered
the domain name as a generic top-level domain name and not merely as a United
Kingdom country code domain.
Moreover, the evidence is that
Complainant has been conducting its international insurance business under the
ACE name since 1985.
In the light of that evidence and
applying the balance of probabilities, the Panel concludes that Respondent
probably knew of Complainant, its field of business, and its ACE trademarks in
their various manifestations when it registered the domain name and when it
used it and continued to use it to promote various insurance products on the
internet.
But even if it did not have actual
knowledge of these matters, it had constructive knowledge of them.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that
Respondent was using the domain name in effect to target Complainant and trade
off its name by attracting consumers to the <aceinsurances.com>
website and divert them to other websites and businesses.
As has been noted above, it has been held
consistently in decisions such as Big
Dog, FA 093554 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Mar. 9, 2000), Ameritrade, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Jan. 11, 2002), DLJ, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Apr. 9, 2002), and Disney, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003), that such a use of a domain name is
not a bona fide offering of goods and services. That is so because it is not bona
fide to trade on someone else’s trademark to sell your own goods and
services or those of your associates.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact
that the domain name resolves to a page headed “Ace Insurances.com’s
Links.” This is as clear a statement as
could be devised that this is the page of an insurance company named “Ace
Insurances” or, at least, a company named “Ace” that is engaged in insurance
and that, in either case, endorses the links set out in the homepage.
The conclusion is also reinforced by the
fact that although Respondent’s evidence is that it wanted a word starting with
the letter “A” for its website, no explanation is given as to why the word
“ACE” was chosen. When the name chosen
to promote insurance products is the name of a company actually engaged in insurance,
the inference that the name was chosen for that reason is a strong one.
In all of these circumstances,
Respondent’s use of the domain name cannot be described as “bona fide.”
The Respondent also relies on Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), i.e. that
it has been commonly known by the domain name.
However, it offers no evidence or arguments in support of this
contention. It is clear on the evidence
that Respondent is not known commonly or at all as “aceinsurences.com,” but as
Compel Corporation, which is its name.
The only basis on which Respondent
contends that it comes within Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) is its argument with respect
to the layout of the homepage to which the domain name resolves.
Respondent argues that the website “only
uses the words ‘ace insurances’ in a descriptive sense. For example, Respondent uses ‘ace
insurances’ [sic] on the website’s homepage (http://www.aceinsurances.com) in the same way it uses ‘great
value insurances’: ‘If you are looking for
great value insurances… please
click here now.’”
In fact that is not correct, for the
expression used in the homepage is “Ace Insurances,” which, as the Panel noted
above, implies a company named “Ace Insurances” or “Ace.”
Again, the heading of the list of links
is “Ace Insurances,” with each word commencing with a capital letter and
implying that the products being offered are those of the same company, when in
fact they are not.
Accordingly, that argument cannot be used
to bring Respondent within the provisions of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Moreover, the Panel has already
concluded, applying the balance of probabilities to the evidence submitted by
both parties, that Respondent has used the domain name to divert potential
internet customers of Complainant to other websites. As well as not constituting a bona
fide offering of goods and services, such conduct has consistently been
held not to be a legitimate or fair use of a domain name. See Computer Doctor
Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 095396 (Nat. Arb. Forum,
Sept. 8, 2000); Microsoft Corp. v. StepWeb, D2000-1500 (WIPO Jan. 19, 2001); Wedding Channel.com Inc v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12,
2003); Black & Decker Corp. v.
Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum, June 24, 2002).
The Panel therefore concludes that
Respondent has not been making a legitimate fair use of the domain name.
As Respondent has therefore not been able
to rebut the prima facie case made out
by Complainant, Complainant has succeeded in establishing this, the second,
element that it must prove under the Policy.
Policy ¶ 4(b) lists four criteria, the
proof of any one of which will satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii),
i.e. that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
The Complainant relies on all four of the
criteria.
The Panel is not satisfied that a case
has been made out under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) – 4(b)(iii) as there are simply no
facts to justify such findings.
The issue of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), however,
is not so clear cut.
Because conflicting arguments and
evidence have been advanced by both sides, the Panel has had to apply to that
material the two principles that, first, the onus is on Complainant to prove
every element of its case and, secondly, that the standard of proof to be
applied is the balance of probabilities.
Applying those principles, the Panel’s conclusion is that Respondent’s
conduct comes within the provisions of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Within the words of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv),
Respondent, first, has clearly used the domain name, secondly it has
intentionally used it to attract users to its website <aceinsurances.com>
or to another online location, <wisemoney.com> and, thirdly, although the
sites are free to users, the whole project is clearly part of a business and
must be one that is being undertaken for commercial gain. The only remaining issue is whether this
activity has been engaged in by creating a likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s mark as to its association with Respondent’s site or the products
being offered on it.
The following facts support the conclusion that, within the
meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the conduct has been engaged in with the intention
of creating such a likelihood of confusion in the manner specified:
(a) the lack of any persuasive reason for
Complainant’s having chosen the name “Ace” in conjunction with the word
“insurances” if it were not to invoke the name of Complainant;
(b) the fact that Complainant’s name was in
use in the insurance industry since 1985;
(c) the closeness in time between the
application for registration of the trademarks and the registration of the
domain name;
(d) the heading given to the homepage as “Ace
Insurances.com’s Links”;
(e) the contents of the homepage, listing as
it does, insurance services offered by potential competitors of Complainant .
It is also inherently unlikely that
consumers seeking insurance coverage would type “aceinsurances.com” into their
computers, but inherently likely, as must have been known to those who chose
the domain name and constructed the site, that customers seeking the ACE
company would type those words into their computers and that when they saw that
their search produced a homepage headed “Ace Insurances.com’s Links,” they
would assume that they had actually reached the “ACE” website and that the
products listed were either the actual products of the ACE company or products
that were endorsed by it.
Such activity has regularly been held by
UDRP panels to constitute both bad faith registration and use for the purposes
of the Policy. See, e.g., Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Aug. 29, 2000); Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holdings, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum,
Apr. 17, 2000); Black and Decker Corp.
v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629
(Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002); WeddingChannel.com
v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum, June 12, 2003).
Accordingly, as one of the criteria set
out in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been proved, Complainant succeeds on this
element.
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 <aceinsurances.com> domain name
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to
Complainant.
The Honourable
Neil Anthony Brown QC, Panelist
Dated: October 11, 2005
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum