Genzyme Corporation v.
Robert Brown d/b/a BladeSpray Inc.
Claim Number: FA0701000902965
PARTIES
Complainant is Genzyme Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Lawrence
R. Robins, of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
Dunner, L.L.P.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <simvisc.com>, <symvisc.com>, <syndisc.com>, <synivisc.com>, <synovisc.com>, <synvasc.com>, <synvesc.com> and <synvics.com>, registered with Tucows 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.
Kendal C. Reed as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on January 25, 2007; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 26, 2007.
On January 25, 2007, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <simvisc.com>, <symvisc.com>, <syndisc.com>, <synivisc.com>, <synovisc.com>, <synvasc.com>, <synvesc.com>, and <synvics.com> domain names (“Respondent’s
Domain Names”) are registered with Tucows Inc.
and that the Respondent is the current registrant of these domain names. Tucows Inc.
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows
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 January 30, 2007, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 19, 2007 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@simvisc.com, postmaster@symvisc.com, postmaster@syndisc.com, postmaster@synivisc.com,
postmaster@synovisc.com, postmaster@synvasc.com, postmaster@synvesc.com, and postmaster@synvics.com
by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 19, 2007.
A timely Additional Submission from Complainant was received and
determined to be complete on February 20, 2007.
On February 23, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Kendall C. Reed as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that Respondent’s Domain Names be transferred to
Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant is one of the world’s leading biotechnology companies. Complainant develops and markets products and
services focused on, among other things, orthopedics, cancer, transplant and
immune disease, rare inherited disorders, kidney disease, and diagnostic
testing.
Complainant owns the mark SYNVISC (“Complainant’s Mark”), which
identifies Complainant’s pharmaceutical treatments for osteoarthritis of the
knee. Complainant’s rights in the SYNVISC
mark date back to at least as early as October 25, 1985. Complainant began using the SYNVISC mark in
commerce on that date, and acquired common law rights as of that date. In addition, Complainant owns U.S. Trademark
Registration No. 1,418,125 for the SYNVISC mark, with a date of first use on
October 25, 1985, filed May 8, 1986, issued November 25, 1986, covering goods
in International Classes 5 (pharmaceuticals) and 10 (medical apparatus). Complainant also owns Canadian Trademark
Registration No. TMA340261 for the SYNVISC mark, filed January 16, 1987, issued
May 13, 1988, covering pharmaceuticals.
Complainant has made extensive sales of pharmaceutical products bearing
the SYNVISC mark. For example, in 2005
revenues for Complainant’s Synvisc pharmaceutical treatments were
$218,000,000. In 2006, revenues for the
Synvisc pharmaceutical treatments were $233,000,000.
Complainant widely advertises its Synvisc product in the
Complainant’s website dedicated to its Synvisc medication is located at
the domain name <synvisc.com>, which Complainant registered in November
1997 and which Complainant has used since on or about that date.
Respondent registered the Domain Names on April 20, 2004, after
Complainant acquired its trademark SYNVISC.
Respondent uses the domain names <simvisc.com>,
<syndisc.com>,
<synivisc.com>,
<synovisc.com>, <synvasc.com>, <synvesc.com> and
<synvics.com> for a commercial website offering Complainant’s SYNVISC
product and the directly competing product ORTHOVISC manufactured by a
competitor.
Respondent does not appear to be currently using the domain name <symvisc.com>.
Respondent’s Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark
because these domain names are mere misspellings of Complainant’s Mark, which
is not sufficient to create a distinction.
Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in Respondent’s Domain
Names for several reasons. Firstly,
Respondent is not and has not been commonly know by any of Respondent’s Domain
Names. Secondly, Respondent’s use or
intended use of Respondent’s Domain Names for a commercial website offering
Complaint’s SYNVSC product and a product
manufactured and sold by Complainant’s competitor does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of Respondent’s Domain Names under the Policy. Thirdly, Respondent registered eight domain
names, which demonstrates a lack good faith.
Respondent acted in bad faith for several reasons. Firstly, Respondent’s use of Respondent’s
Domain Names creates a likelihood of confusion on the part of the buying public
as between Respondent and Complainant. Secondly,
Respondent is using Respondent’s Domain Names to resolve to a website on which
Respondent is selling a product competitive to Complainant’s product. Thirdly, Respondent’s registration of eight
domain names, each similar to Complaint’s Mark, show a
pattern of conduct that amounts to bad faith. Fourthly, Respondent’s activities constitute
“typosquatting.” Fifthly, Respondent is
merely passive holding the <symvisc.com>
domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent does have rights or legitimate interest in respect of Respondent’s
Domain Names. Before receiving any
notice of the dispute, Respondent’s Domain Names were and are being used by
Respondent in connection with a bona fide
offering of goods or services; the websites complained of offer Synvisc, a
product manufactured by Complainant, for sale. The sale of this product is to the benefit of
the Complainant. The website offers
consumers another competitive choice for the purchase of the product and offers
the Complainant another place for consumers to become familiar with their
product, expanding the market for the product.
Further, the website is making a legitimate fair use of the domain
names, without intent to mislead or divert consumers or to tarnish the
trademarks or service mark at issue. The
website that is the subject of the complaint makes no claim to be Synvisc or
Genzyme, but merely offers the Synvisc product for sale. The website makes no attempt to bait and
switch consumers to a competitive product. It simply offers information about each
product, along with pricing and ordering information. The website has clearly visible links at the
top of the page stating: “If you are looking for the Synvisc Corporate Site
Click Here.” It was anticipated that
some people may be confused. If their
intent is to find the complainant’s website, this intent is accommodated by the
link. The website clearly shows toll
free phone numbers and e-mail addresses. Consumers using these free contact services
are never mislead to think that Respondent represents or is the Complainant. Respondent commonly refers consumers back to
the Complainant’s website, if that is what they are looking for. If customers are simply looking to purchase
the product, Respondent tries to satisfy the customers’ requests. Respondent never implies that the consumer is
purchasing directly from the manufacturer. Respondent always makes it clear that it is a
reseller. As a reseller, it is not
surprising that Respondent offer competitive products
as well.
Respondent did not register and is not using Respondent’s Domain Names in bad faith. The domain names were not registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations to the Complainant, as the alleged owner of the trademark or service mark, or to a competitor of Complainant. The domain names were not registered in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name and, in connection therewith, Respondent has not engaged in a pattern of such conduct. Complainant and Respondent are not competitors and the domain names were not registered by Respondent primarily to disrupt the Complainant’s business. The domain names were not registered by Respondent in an intentional attempt to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The website contains clear links back to Complainant’s website for Internet users that may be confused or are looking for the Complainant’s website. In this regard, the websites provides a service to Internet users in finding the Complainant’s website. Other forms of contact through e-mail or telephone, where users are looking to contact the complainant, are willingly accommodated.
C. Additional Submissions
Nothing in Respondent’s Response refutes
Complainant’s initial showing that it is entitled to relief. In fact, Respondent’s own admissions (either
express admissions or failure to deny certain allegations in Complainant’s
Complaint) alone are sufficient for Complainant to prevail. Specifically:
- Respondent does not deny that he registered the domain names <simvisc.com>, <symvisc.com>, <syndisc.com>, <synivisc.com>, <synovisc.com>, <synvasc.com>, <synvesc.com> and <synvics.com> on April 20, 2004
with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its SYNVISC mark, and without
Complainant’s authorization;
- Respondent does not deny that the Domain Names are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s SYNVISC mark;
- Respondent admits that he knew the Domain Names would confuse
Internet users with his statement “It was anticipated that some people may be
confused;” and
- Respondent admits that he uses the Domain Names for a commercial
website offering competing products.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests to Respondent’s Domain Names. Respondent’s claims that its use of the
Domain Names constitutes a bona fide
offering of goods and a fair use are incorrect because (1) Respondent is not
authorized by Complainant to use the SYNVISC mark in Respondent’s Domain Names
(or otherwise), and (2) the sale of Complainant’s products does not confer on
Respondent the right to use Complainant’s Mark in the Domain Names without Complainant’s
permission. Secondly, Respondent’s
claim that his registration and use of Respondent’s Domain Names constitute
fair use has no basis. The nominative
fair use doctrine permits Respondent and others to indicate in advertising or
informational materials in a textual manner that he sells Synvisc
pharmaceuticals.
Respondent’s actions are in bad faith for purposes of the Policy. Respondent registered and uses the Domain
Names for the purpose of attracting Internet traffic through his use of
misspellings of Complainant’s SYNVISC mark in the Domain Names, and Respondent
admits that it knew that Respondent’s Domain Names would confuse Internet users
with his statement “It was anticipated that some people may be confused.” After attracting consumers interested in
Complainant’s Synvisc medication, Respondent subsequently advertises and sells
competing products. This is a classic
case of actionable initial-interest confusion.
Even if Internet users who access Respondent’s website subsequently
realize that they are not at Complainant’s website, the damage has been done. Further,
the initial-interest confusion caused by Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark
in the Domain Names cannot be relieved or excused by Respondent’s provision of
a link to Complainant’s <synvisc.com> website because Respondent has
already met his goal of attracting Internet users to his website through his
use of Complainant’s SYNVISC mark in the Domain Names.
FINDINGS
Complainant owns the mark SYNVISC (“Complainant’s Mark”), which
identifies Complainant’s pharmaceutical treatments for osteoarthritis of the
knee. Complainant’s rights in the
SYNVISC mark date back to at least as early as October 25, 1985. Complainant began using the SYNVISC mark in
commerce on that date, and acquired common law rights as of that date. In addition, Complainant owns U.S. Trademark
Registration No. 1,418,125 for the SYNVISC mark, first used October 25, 1985,
filed May 8, 1986, issued November 25, 1986, covering goods in International
Classes 5 (pharmaceuticals) and 10 (medical apparatus). Complainant also owns Canadian Trademark
Registration No. TMA340261 for the SYNVISC mark, filed January 16, 1987, issued
May 13, 1988, covering pharmaceuticals.
Complainant’s website dedicated to its Synvisc medication is located at
the domain name <synvisc.com>, which Complainant registered in November
1997 and which Complainant has used since on or about that date.
Complainant has not
given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s Mark in Respondent’s Domain
Names (or otherwise).
Respondent uses the domain names <simvisc.com>,
<syndisc.com>,
<synivisc.com>,
<synovisc.com>,
<synvasc.com>,
<synvesc.com> and <synvics.com> for a commercial
website offering goods for sale, including Complainant’s SYNVISC product and
the directly competing product ORTHOVISC manufactured by Complainant’s
competitor.
Respondent was not using the domain name <symvisc.com>, and was merely holding this domain name.
Respondent registered Respondent’s Domain Names on April 20, 2004,
after Complainant acquired its trademark SYNVISC.
Respondent anticipated that some people might
be confused about whether its website was the Claimant’s website, and
Respondent took the precaution of including a clearly visible link on its
website, at the top of the page, stating: “If you are looking for the Synvisc
Corporate Site Click Here.”
Complainant and Respondent are not
competitors with respect to the sale of the Synvisc product to the consuming
public as Complainant does not itself sell Synvisc product to the consuming
public.
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.
This is a threshold question consisting of
three parts. The first part is that the
complainant must possess trademark rights in a trademark, whether by way of a
national registration or by way of use in commerce. The second part is that a complainant must
have acquired its trademark rights before the respondent obtained its domain
name. And the third part is that the
respondent’s domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the
complainant’s trademark. For purposes of
the third part of the test, confusing similarity is determined in a simple side
by side comparison of the alpha-numeric symbols of each, as this is how
Internet users interface with domain names.
Also, for purpose of the third part of the test, “extraneous” content,
such as “www” or “.com,” is removed before the comparison is made. See Nev. State Bank v. Modern
Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 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.”). See also America Online, Inc. v. Chun, FA 104974 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 22,
2002) (“The mere addition of a generic term to a famous mark as in the instant case
does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming Complainant’s claim of
identical or confusing similarity.”).
In this matter, Complainant has trademark
rights in the mark SYNVISC, and these rights were acquired on or about October
25, 1985. This was before Respondent
acquired Respondent’s Domain Names, which was on April 20, 2004.
When compared side by side with Complainant’s
Mark, and after removing the extraneous matter from Respondent’s Domain Names,
this Panel has no difficulty finding that Respondent’s Domain Names are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark for purpose of the Policy.
As such, Complainant has established this
threshold requirement under the Policy.
Under the Policy, a complainant has the initial burden to demonstrate a
respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in its domain name. Once this initial burden is carried, and the
burden is a light one, it is then incumbent on a respondent to establish that
it does have rights or legitimate interests in its domain names. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277
(Nat. Arb. Forum October 1, 2002) (holding that where the complainant has
asserted that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with
respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward
with concrete evidence rebutting the assertion because this information is
“uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent.”).
Paragraph 4(c) of the policy provides
guidance about what constitutes rights or legitimate interest for purposes of
Paragraph 4(a)(ii).
Three non-exclusive examples are given, to wit:
(i) before
any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to
use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you…have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you
have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert
consumers or tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
In this matter, Complainant has provided
facts demonstrating that Respondent has not been known by Respondent’s Domain
Names and that Respondent’s intent is for commercial gain. Respondent has not provided facts demonstrated
otherwise.
The issue with respect to Paragraph 4(c)(i) as it relates to this matter is whether Respondent’s
use of Respondent’s Domain Names for the commercial purpose of reselling Synvisc
product constitutes a “bona fide
offering of goods…” Respondent argues
that its use of Respondent’s Domain Names is a bona fide effort to legitimately resell Synvisc product. Respondent argues that is not claiming to be
Complainant, and to the extent that there might be some confusion by some
customers, which it expects might happen, it has made
sure that such customers can readily proceed to Complainant’s website by way of
a link prominently placed on Respondent’s website and other contact information
for Complainant. Respondent further
argues that not only is it not harming Complainant, but that Respondent is
helping Complainant’s sale by providing “…another competitive choice for the
purchase of the product and offers the complainant another place for consumer
to become familiar with the product, expanding the market for the product.”
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of
domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark to sell Synvisc
product on the Internet is not a bona
fide offering of goods for purposes of the Policy. Such actions are not within the scope of
rights that a reseller has with respect to its efforts to resell product. This is because, firstly, use by Respondent
of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark is not
reasonably necessary for Respondent to resell Synvisc, and secondly, use by
Respondent of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark
creates the impression of an association between Complainant and Respondent that
does not in fact exist.
This panel agrees with Complainant. It is true that Respondent is engaged in a
legitimate activity when it offers Synvisc product for sale on its
website. However, such a legitimate
activity does not require use of one or several domain names confusingly
similar to Claimant’s mark. See Allen-Edmonds Shoe Corporation v. Takin’
Care of Business, D2002-0799 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2002) (holding that respondent’s
use of the domain name <allenedmondsshoes.com> is not protected by the
nominative fair use doctrine because respondent’s use of complainant’s
trademark as a domain name is not reasonably necessary to allow the resale of
complaint’s product by respondent; “To the contrary, [r]espondent could use any
domain name at all and still sell [c]omplainant’s product on its website.”). For example, Respondent could use its own business
name as a domain name or, as another example, Respondent could use some sort of
descriptive expression that would convey to potential consumers that Respondent
sells such products. Further, it is true
that domain names are a form of advertising.
In this sense, the use of a domain name that is similar to a
manufacturer’s trademark would seem a logical extension of a reseller’s right
to use a manufacture’s trademark to resell the manufacturer’s goods. However, the Internet is a new and different
type of marketing media. It is very
different from newspapers, magazines, radio or television. In all of these media, any number of
merchants can truthfully and legitimately use a manufacture’s trademark to
resell the manufacturer’s goods without creating the impression that they are
the manufacturer itself or associated with the Manufacturer (beyond being a
reseller). The Internet is different. There
can be only one of each domain name in the entire world, and for this reason
Internet users are not and cannot be presented with a multiplicity of
unassociated resellers at the domain name level. In the
environment of the Internet that is paired down in this way, this Panel
believes that a domain name confusingly similar to a manufacturer’s trademark
cannot avoid creating the impression that the website owner is the manufacturer
or is associated and authorized by the manufacturer.
In this matter, Respondent has attempted to
avoid this problem by prominently placing on its website a link redirecting to
Complainant’s website and other contact information for Complainant. In this way, it is made clear to Internet
users that there is no association between Respondent and Complainant. However, this is not sufficient. In the context of the Internet, the most
important moment of confusion is that point in time when an Internet user
clicks to a website, called “initial interest” confusion. A statement on a website that the website
owner is not the manufacturer or associated and authorized by the manufacturer comes
too late to avoid initial interest confusion.
The situation is different with respect to the
domain name <symvisc.com>. This mark is not currently being used. However, because this domain name is not being
used, it is being passively held, which is not a bona fide use. See Am.
Home Prods. Corp. v. Malgioglio,
D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in
the domain name <solgarvitimins.com> where the respondent merely
passively held the domain name).
Complainant has carried its burden and
Respondent has not established that it is entitled to the protection of the
safe harbor.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides
guidance about what conduct constitutes bad faith conduct for purposes of
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the policy. Paragraph 4(b) provides four non-exclusive
examples of bad faith conduct, to wit:
(i)
circumstances
indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name
primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the
domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark
or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable
consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related
to the domain name; or
(ii)
you have
registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service
mark from reflecting the mark in a correspondent domain name, provided that
your have engage in a pattern of such conduct;
(iii)
you have
registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business
of a competitor; or
(iv)
by using
the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users to you web site or other on-line location, by creating a
likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service
on you web site or location.
The Panel believes that Respondent did not
register or use Respondent’s Domain Names for the purpose of selling them to
Complainant. Respondent registered
Respondent’s Domain Names to use them itself for marketing purposes.
This Panel believes that Respondent did not
register or use Respondent’s Domain Names in an effort to prevent Claimant from
reflecting Complainant’s Mark in a corresponding domain name. Complainant does have a domain name that
consists of Complainant’s Mark, namely <synvisc.com>.
This Panel believes that Respondent did not
register or use Respondent’s Domain Names for the purpose of disrupting the
business of a competitor. It does not
appear that Complainant and Respondent are actually competitors with respect to
the sale of Synvisc to the consuming public in that Complainant does not actually
sells Synvisc product to the consuming public.
It appears that Complainant sells Synvisc product to others who then resell
the product to the consuming public. The
competition is then between and among these resellers. As between Complainant and Respondent,
Respondent’s sales are in line with Complainant’s commercial goals in that
every sale by Respondent is a sale for Complainant.
With respect to Paragraph 4(b)(iii), the Respondent did register and use Respondent’s
Domain Names for the purpose of attracting Internet users to its website for it
own commercial gain. In doing so,
Respondent did use domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
Mark. Because the Internet and the
domain name system has a strong aspect of exclusivity as noted above,
Respondent’s use of Respondent’s Domain Names necessarily created a likelihood
of confusion as to the sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s
website on the part of the Complainant. This
then, warps or creates the strong likelihood for warping the playing field as
between and among the resellers of Synvisc product. Said another way, by using domain names that
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark, Respondents intended and likely
did obtain a marketing advantage over other resellers of Synvisc product by
creating the impression that its website was sponsored, affiliated or endorsed
by Complainant. As such, Respondent’s
actions do constitute bad faith conduct for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
It is not sufficient to make acceptable
Respondent’s use of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complaint’s
Mark that Respondent included on its website a conspicuous link to
Complainant’s website and other contact information for Complainant. Once an Internet user arrives at Respondent’s
website with the belief that Respondent’s website is sponsored, affiliated, or
endorsed by Complainant, the damage is done.
The situation is different with respect to the
domain name <symvisc.com>. This mark is not currently being used. However, because this domain name is not
being used, it is being passively held.
Further, the <symvisc.com>
domain name it is one of several domain names that are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s Mark and which were used in bad faith. As such, the <symvisc.com> is also being used in bad faith. See H-D Michigan, Inc., v.
TT&R et al., FA 126650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2002) (finding
respondent’s passive holding of the domain name <harleydavidon-r-us.com>
in bad faith because respondent’s bad faith registration and use of additional
domain names permits the inference that any future use of the passively-held
domain name would be in bad faith and because the Panel could not imagine a
circumstance where respondent could use that domain name in good faith).
Complainant has established that Respondent’s
Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
this Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <simvisc.com>, <symvisc.com>, <syndisc.com>, <synivisc.com>, <synovisc.com>, <synvasc.com>, <synvesc.com>, and <synvics.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Kendall C. Reed, Panelist
Dated: March 9, 2007
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum