Caribbean Publishing
Company, Ltd. v.
Claim Number: FA0702000914922
PARTIES
Complainant is Caribbean Publishing Company, Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul
D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <carribbeanyellowpages.com>, <carribeanyellowpages.com> and <caribyp.com>
(the “Domain Names”),
registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. The domain names
<carribbeanyellowpages.com> and <carribeanyellowpages.com> were registered on March 12, 2006.
The domain name <caribyp.com>
was registered on May 17, 2006.
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.
Christopher Gibson as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on February 9, 2007; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 12, 2007.
On February 12, 2007, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to
the National Arbitration Forum that the <carribbeanyellowpages.com>, <carribeanyellowpages.com> and <caribyp.com>
domain names are registered with Wild West
Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the
names. Wild
West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 February 21, 2007, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the
“Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 13, 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@carribbeanyellowpages.com,
postmaster@carribeanyellowpages.com and postmaster@caribyp.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 12, 2007.
NAF confirmed that Complainant’s Additional Submission of March 19,
2007 was received in a timely
manner, in accordance with NAF Supplemental Rule No. 7:
On April 18, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Christopher Gibson as Panelist.
Complainant also brought a request to consolidate this case with Case
No. FA 921647.
This request was opposed by Respondent.
The Panelist, by order dated April 17, 2007, denied the request to
consolidate these cases.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it is the owner of the trademark CARIBBEAN
YELLOW PAGES CPC (& design); that the Domain Names are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s mark; that Respondent has no legitimate interests in the
Domain Names; and that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names
in bad faith. Complainant’s arguments
are reviewed below.
Rights in a trademark:
Complainant is a company that provides telephone directories focusing on
Complainant is the owner of the
Complainant’s principal website is located at
<caribbeanyellowpages.com>.
Complainant states that it expanded use of its mark onto the Internet in
1997, and has submitted evidence that its website has been available and in use
since at least November 1998.
Complainant therefore claims that it has also established common law
rights to the mark, CARIBBEANYELLOWPAGES.COM.
The Domain Names were registered by Respondent in March and May 2006
(see above). Complainant contends that
this registration occurred well after Complainant had established trademark
rights in its mark.
Confusingly similar: Complainant contends that the Domain Names
are confusingly similar to its trademark because they incorporate the dominant
part of Complainant’s mark, CARIBBEAN YELLOW PAGES, adding only a hyphen
between words.
No legitimate interests: Complainant contends that
Respondent has no trademark or other intellectual property rights in the Domain
Names, and that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark is unauthorized, having
received no license or permission from Complainant. Complainant asserts that Respondent is
predominantly known as “Island Yellow Pages,” and has also been known as
“Island Super Pages” or “Rummi’s,” but has never been known as Caribbean Yellow
Pages. Complainant has also submitted
WHOIS look-up records for the Domain Names, indicating that the registrant is
listed as “Island Super Pages.”
Complainant contends that Respondent has never operated any bona
fide or legitimate business under the Domain Names, nor made non-commercial
or fair use of them. Instead, Respondent
is using the Domain Names to offer directly competing services.
Registered and using the Domain Names in bad faith:
Complainant contends that Respondent registered the Domain Names in bad
faith and is using them in bad faith.
With respect to registration in bad faith, Complainant contends that
Respondent offers competing services and had actual knowledge of Complainant’s
mark and rights. Complainant refers to
the letter dated February 25, 2004 sent by Complainant’s legal representative
to Respondent, in which Complainant informed Respondent of Complainant’s
trademark rights and demanded that it cease and desist from using Complainant’s
trademark.
Complainant further contends that Respondent has used the Domain Names
in bad faith by willfully redirecting traffic to Respondent’s websites, which
offer competing services. Complainant
argues that Respondent’s conduct is squarely within the illustrations of bad
faith in the UDRP Policy, paragraph 4(b), which sets forth two applicable
examples of bad faith:
“(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 your 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 web site or
location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
Complainant contends that Respondent has intentionally attempted to
attract Complainant’s customers by creating a likelihood of confusion, and that
Respondent is using the Domain Names to create a false impression to consumers
that they have reached Complainant’s site.
Respondent’s use is therefore disrupting Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
In its Response, Respondent contends that Complainant has no legally
protected rights to the terms “Caribbean Yellow Pages;” that Respondent has
legitimate interests in the Domain Names; and that Respondent has not
registered or used the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent’s arguments are reviewed below.
Respondent contends that Complainant’s trademark rights are limited
only to the mark CARIBBEAN YELLOW PAGES CPC in conjunction with the design, but
do not extend to exclusive rights for the terms “Yellow Pages” or
“Caribbean.” Respondent highlights that
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) requires a disclaimer of any
exclusive right to use the term “yellow pages.” Further, the phrase “Caribbean Yellow Pages”
is generic and therefore incapable of trademark protection. In addition, Respondent contends that
geographical terms cannot be trademarked unless one can show distinctiveness,
and the terms “
With respect to legitimate rights, Respondent contends that it was
operating a business website for at least one year prior to Complainant’s
website being published. Respondent
therefore argues that it did not disturb or redirect any traffic away from
Complainant’s website, since this site did not yet exist at the time Respondent
first established its own site.
Additionally, Respondent contends that it has been known as Caribbean
Yellow Pages since 2003 and has operated under this name since that time. Respondent also alleges that it is
Complainant which has practiced “cybersquatting” because it did not use its own
registered domain name <caribbeanyellowpages.com> for at least seven
years.
Respondent contends that, even though Complainant and Respondent engage
in the same area of commerce, they do so using different and distinct
methodologies. Complainant specializes
in business to business directory services, while Respondent offers directory
services geared more towards individuals.
Respondent denies that it registered or has used the Domain Names in
bad faith, or that it has used it to redirect traffic to its own websites. Respondent states that it registered the
Domain Names in dispute in this case in order to prevent typosquatters from
registering these names, and not for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s
business. Respondent also refers to
domain names registered by other third parties, such as
<caribbeanonlineyellowpages.com>, which are
“similar” but against which Complainant has yet to file any claim. Finally, Respondent states that it has never
used Complainant’s trademark on its website or claimed to be the same company,
but instead has used the tag line “a division of Island Super Pages.”
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant’s Additional Submission first highlights that Respondent
failed to deny several assertions made by Complainant, including that (i) the
Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; (ii)
Complainant owns the U.S. mark, CARIBBEAN YELLOW PAGES CPC; (iii) Respondent
used the Domain Names to attract web traffic to its website; and (iv)
Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s trademark
rights when it registered the Domain Names.
Complainant also takes issues with several of Respondent’s
arguments. In response to Respondent’s
contention that Complainant does not have exclusive rights because
Complainant’s mark is limited to CARIBBEAN YELLOW PAGES CPC in conjunction with
the design, Complainant asserts that the text element of a mark may be
protected under the Policy, and that the mere removal of “CPC” while still
using the dominant part of Complainant’s mark does not decrease the confusing
similarity between the Domain Names and Complainant’s mark.
Complainant emphasizes that not only has its trademark achieved
incontestable status under U.S. trademark law, but that the commercial
impression of a trademark, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, must be derived
from the whole, not from its elements separated and considered in detail. Thus, Complainant argues that the relevant
issue is whether the textual elements of Complainant’s mark, CARIBBEAN YELLOW
PAGES CPC, taken as a whole, are confusingly similar to the Domain Names. As to Respondent’s contention that
geographical terms cannot be trademarked unless the mark holder can show distinctiveness,
Complainant contends that
Complainant contests Respondent’s assertion that it had rights and
legitimate interests in the Domain Names because Respondent was using them to
direct Internet users to a website that pre-existed the establishment of
Complainant’s own site. Complainant
first offers evidence to make clear that it registered its own domain name <caribbeanyellowpages.com>
and commenced operating that site from November 1998, well before Respondent
registered the Domain Names in March and May 2006. Complainant argues that, to the extent
Respondent is asserting it offered services online before Complainant (albeit
using a domain name different from the Domain Names), this is not the proper
framing of the issue. The question to be
considered under the Policy is not when Complainant first operated its own website,
but whether Complainant had rights in its trademark before Respondent
registered the Domain Names. As to this
question, Complainant states that it had registered and used its trademark in
commerce for more than a decade before Respondent registered the Domain Names.
Among the other arguments made by Complainant, it asserts that
Respondent’s own statements describing its offering of slightly different
services actually emphasize the fact that Respondent is a direct competitor of
Complainant. Complainant argues that
whether or not it has taken action against other potentially infringing domain
names is irrelevant to this case.
Finally, Complainant contends that the small disclaimer on Respondent’s
website does nothing to minimize any confusion and in fact increases the
likelihood of confusion.
FINDINGS
The Panel finds that Complainant is the owner of the
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 Complainant must prove each
of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be
cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights;
(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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has clearly
established rights in its CARIBBEAN YELLOW PAGES CPC (and design) mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The trademark has achieved incontestable status under
Instead, the focus of both parties’
arguments has been on the issue of whether or not the Domain Names are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
In particular, Complainant has asserted that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its
trademark because it contains the dominant part of Complainant’s mark in its
entirety and merely inserts a hyphen between the terms “
While the Panelist would agree that the introduction of a hyphen, alone, would normally not be sufficient to avoid confusion between a domain name and a trademark, this is not the key point on which Respondent hinges its arguments. Respondent contends that there is no confusing similarity because the Domain Names consists only of terms such as “caribbean” and “yellow pages,” which are generic, descriptive and incapable of being within the scope of Complainant’s trademark rights. Thus, the question of confusing similarity turns on whether the terms which comprise the Domain Names fall within the scope of Complainant’s protectable rights.
Both parties have made reference to
legal authorities under
This is of course a domain name
dispute and the standards and tests that are used when trademarks are said to
collide do not necessarily apply to the same degree. However it is worth
noting that the Supreme Court of the
Here, Complainant’s trademark had been registered and used by Complainant for more than 15 years prior to the date on which Respondent registered the Domain Names. While Respondent attempts to attack Complainant’s online activity as being limited – an attack to which Complainant has submitted reasonable evidence in response – Respondent has failed to address the prior off-line commercial activities of Complainant, which would have contributed to distinctiveness and secondary meaning for Complainant’s mark. The present case is not one where the comparison is between two domain names, but between the Domain Names and an incontestable trademark registration that has been used by Complainant both off-line and online. Respondent has failed to provide sufficient evidence in this case to overcome the high threshold of showing that Complainant’s registered mark, even when comprised of certain terms that alone may not be distinctive, has not attained secondary meaning or distinctiveness.
The final piece of the confusing similarity analysis relates to a direct comparison of the Domain Names with Complainant’s mark. Complainant contends that the relevant issue is whether the textual elements of Complainant’s mark, CARIBBEAN YELLOW PAGES CPC, taken as a whole, are confusingly similar to the Domain Names. Complainant further argues that Respondent’s position would improperly dissect Complainant’s mark by separating out the “CPC” and “yellow pages” elements. Complainant has cited Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Commisioner of Patents, 252 U.S. 538 (1920), in which the Supreme Court ruled that “the commercial impression of a trademark is derived from it as a whole.” Respondent, however, emphasizes that Complainant’s entire mark must be taken to include the “CPC” text (and the design), which are the elements that really serves to distinguish Complainant’s mark.
The Panelist disagrees with
Respondent’s position with respect to two of the Domain Names. The overall impression when comparing the
“Caribbean Yellow Pages CPC” mark with the domain names <carribbeanyellowpages.com> and <carribeanyellowpages.com>,
each of which contains a typographical misspelling of one of the words that
forms a dominant element in Complainant’s trademark, is one that easily
yields a finding of confusing similarity.
See Gen. Steel Domestic Sales LLC
v. Malinuskii, FA 140653 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Mar. 4, 2004) (finding
<generalsteel.com> to be confusingly similar to GENERAL STEEL CORPORATION
mark). However, with respect to the
third Domain Name in dispute, <caribyp.com>, this apparent abbreviation is nonetheless
sufficiently dissimilar from and unclear in any reference to Complainant’s
trademark, such that there can be no finding of confusing similarity.
In conclusion, the
Panel finds that the Domain Names <carribbeanyellowpages.com> and <carribeanyellowpages.com>
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, while the Domain Name <caribyp.com> is not.
As noted above, Complainant contends that Respondent has no trademark
or other intellectual property rights in the Domain Names, that Respondent’s
use of Complainant’s mark is unauthorized, and that Respondent is predominantly
known as “Island Yellow Pages,” and has also been known as “Island Super Pages”
or “Rummi’s.” Complainant also asserted
that Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business
under the Domain Names.
Respondent
rejected these contentions, indicating that it has rights and legitimate
interests in the Domain Names because it was operating a business website for
at least one year prior to Complainant’s website being published, and therefore
argues that it did not disturb or redirect any traffic away from Complainant’s
website. Respondent asserts that it has
been known as Caribbean Yellow Pages since 2003 and has operated under this name
since that time. Respondent argues that
it is Complainant which has practiced “cybersquatting” because it did not use
its own registered domain name <caribbeanyellowpages.com> for at least
seven years.
The Panel finds that Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate
interests in the Domain Names. First, as
discussed above, Respondent’s arguments focus only on online activities and do
not weigh Complainant’s off-line commercial activities and use of its trademark,
which were established well before Respondent chose to register the Domain
Names. Second, Complainant submitted
evidence to show that its own website was available from at least 1998, more
than seven years before Respondent registered the Domain Names in dispute. Thus, we have a chronology in which
Complainant obtained its registered trademark in 1991, then registered its own
domain name <caribbeanyellowpages.com> in 1997 and published and
maintained its website under that name since November 1998 at the latest. It was more than seven years later, in March
and May 2006, when Respondent registered the Domain Names. Respondent could have chosen different domain
names that did not give rise to the issues which are now before this Panel. However, it is important to recall that each
time a domain name is registered, the registrant represents in the registration
agreement that to the best of the registrant’s knowledge and belief, neither
the registration of the domain name nor the manner in which it is directly or
indirectly used infringes the legal rights of any third party.
The Panel must also observe that, to the extent Respondent’s views that
its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names are predicated on
establishing its rights in another domain name, <caribbean-yellowpages.com>,
which is the subject of NAF Case FA 921647, this position cannot be
sustained. The Panelist here has also
served as the panelist in that case, which was brought by the same complainant
as in this case. The respondent in that
case failed to establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in
dispute and the panelist there ruled in favor of the complainant.
Respondent has also provided no evidence in support of its statement
that it has been known as the Caribbean Yellow Pages since 2003. The Panelist notes that the Domain Names were
registered only recently in March and May 2006.
The Panelist has viewed the current web pages which appear when the
domain names <carribbeanyellowpages.com> and <carribeanyellowpages.com>
are entered. Both sites include a
reference to Caribbean Yellow Pages, but this would appear to contradict
another statement made by Respondent in its Response, that “[a]t no time has
Respondent used Complainant’s trademark on their web pages or made any claims
to be the same company.” Respondent
cannot have it both ways. As noted
above, Complainant submitted a copy of a letter from its legal representative
to Respondent dated March 2004, in which it demanded that Respondent cease and
desist from using Complainant’s trademark and to transfer the domain name
<caribbean-yellowpages.com> to Complainant. See Am. Online, Inc. v. World Photo Video & Imaging
Corp., FA 109031 (Nat. Arb. Forum May
13, 2002) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by <aolcamera.com>
or <aolcameras.com> because the respondent
was doing business as “Sunset Camera” and “World Photo Video &
Imaging Corp.”).
All of these circumstances together suggest that, even in the face of
Respondent’s use of the Domain Names for its own business, such use has not
established rights or legitimate interests for Respondent. See
Or. State Bar v. A Special Day, Inc., FA 99657 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2001)
(“Respondent's advertising of legal services and sale of law-related books
under Complainant's name is not a bona fide offering of goods and services
because Respondent is using a mark confusingly similar to the Complainant's to
sell competing goods.”)
Complainant contends that Respondent registered the Domain Names in bad
faith and is using them in bad faith, that Respondent had actual or
constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark, and offered competing
services. Complainant argues that
Respondent’s conduct is also squarely within the illustrations of bad faith in
the Policy, paragraph 4(b), which sets forth two examples of bad faith:
(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 your 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 web site or
location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
Complainant contends that Respondent has intentionally attempted to
attract Complainant’s customers by creating a likelihood of confusion, and that
Respondent is using the Domain Names to create a false impression to consumers
that they have reached Complainant’s site.
Respondent denies that it registered or has used the Domain Names in
bad faith, or that it has used the Domain Names to redirect traffic to its own
websites. Respondent contends that, even
though Complainant and Respondent engage in the same area of commerce, they do
so using different and distinct methodologies.
Respondent also argues, as noted above, that its website was established
before Complainant’s site, and therefore no traffic was “redirected” to
Respondent’s site. Respondent also
referred to domain names registered by other third parties which are “similar”
but against which Complainant has filed no claims. Respondent contends that it has never used
Complainant’s trademark on its website or claimed to be the same company, but
instead used the tag line “a division of Island Super Pages.” Finally, Respondent states that it registered
the Domain Names in order to prevent typosquatters from registering them, not
to disrupt Complainant’s business.
Weighing the parties’ arguments and the evidence, the Panelist determines that Respondent registered the Domain Names in bad faith and has used them in bad faith. First, the evidence supports the view that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time when Respondent registered the Domain Names. As noted above, Complainant’s legal representative sent a letter dated February 25, 2004 to Respondent, in which Complainant informed Respondent of Complainant’s trademark rights and demanded that it cease and desist from using Complainant’s trademark in the domain name <caribbean-yellowpages.com>. Moreover, even if we assume that Respondent was not specifically aware of Complainant’s federally registered mark, this is no excuse under these circumstances. Here, imputing to Respondent constructive knowledge of Complainant’s trademarks – that is, the trademarks of a company operating in the same area of commerce (although offering slightly different products and services) and targeting the same geographic region – is not going too far. Bad faith registration can be found when a domain name registrant uses the mark of another with knowledge of the mark holder’s rights. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum, April 17, 2000) (finding evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a mark at the time of registration); 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.”); Nintendo of Am. Inc. v. Pokemon, D2000-1230 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding that respondent, at the time of registration, had notice of complainant’s trademarks and thus registered the domain name in bad faith).
Respondent has made the same mistake that many other domain name registrants have made when registering names: Respondent ignored what Complainant had been doing everywhere except on the Internet, as if this other activity had no relevance to his choice of domain names, and no legal relevance even now as Respondent seeks to justify registration of the Domain Names. If the Panelist were to accept this approach, it would significantly undermine the legal rights and protections that arise through trademark registrations and conduct which takes place elsewhere than on the Internet. In the opinion of the Panel, Respondent exercised, at best, poor judgment and, at worst, calculation in its approach on these issues.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has used the Domain Names to attract Internet users to its websites offering services in close competition with Complainant. Because of the confusing similarity between Complainant’s mark and at least two of the Domain Names, <carribbeanyellowpages.com> and <carribeanyellowpages.com>, Internet users may mistakenly believe that Respondent’s website is sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. There is at least initial interest confusion, which cannot be completely remedied by statements on the websites themselves (although the statements on these sites do nothing to dispel the potential confusion). Although Respondent contends that its website existed first in time, Complainant has offered evidence to call this assertion into question. Furthermore, even if a website of Respondent might have existed earlier, it was a site published under a different domain name, not the Domain Names in dispute. The “likelihood of confusion” that is the concern of ¶ 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is with respect to Complainant’s trademark, not simply who first established a website. Finally, it is of no relevance to this case that Complainant has not filed claims against every third party whom might have registered a confusingly similar domain name.
The Panel finds that Respondent has
engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs.,
D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use
of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are
offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the
complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the
site); see also MathForum.com, LLC
v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly
similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a
commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant
under its mark).
The Panel concludes that, in the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Names is indicative of bad faith under the Policy.
DECISION
Having established all three of the required elements under the ICANN
Policy with respect to the Domain Names <carribbeanyellowpages.com> and <carribeanyellowpages.com>, the Panel concludes
that relief as to these two Domain Names shall be GRANTED. However,
because Complainant did not establish that the Domain Name <caribyp.com>
was confusingly similar to its
trademark, the relief as to this Domain Name shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <carribbeanyellowpages.com> and <carribeanyellowpages.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Christopher Gibson, Panelist
Dated: May 9, 2007
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum