Google LLC v. Domain Investor / This Domain Is For Sale
Claim Number: FA1910001869245
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew J. Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Domain Investor / This Domain Is For Sale (“Respondent”), Georgia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <gsuitepromocodeusa.com> and <gsuitepromocode.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 30, 2019; the Forum received payment on October 30, 2019.
On October 31, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <gsuitepromocodeusa.com> and <gsuitepromocode.net> domain names (the Domain Names) are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 31, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of November 20, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@gsuitepromocodeusa.com, postmaster@gsuitepromocode.net. Also on October 31, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 21, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Multiple Domain Names
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant alleges that both Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person or entity. The WHOIS report submitted as Complaint Annex 4 shows that both Domain Names are registered in the same names, i.e., “Domain Investor / This Domain Is For Sale.” The registrant of both Domain Names utilized the same registrar, listed the same telephone number and email address (maildomaininvestor@gmail.com) for itself, and is using the Domain Names in the same manner, being to offer discounts related to Complainant’s products and services (Complaint Annexes 13 & 14). The street addresses listed for the registrant in the WHOIS report are not literally the same but are both nonsensical addresses written in the same style, e.g., Sydney or Bangalore, California, Georgia. Further, following service of the Complaint, the Forum received two emails from maildomaininvestor@gmail.com, both of which related to and purported to deal with both Domain Names. On this evidence the Panel finds that both Domain Names are registered to the same person or entity and will proceed as to both of them.
A. Complainant
Complainant operates a wide range of Internet-related products and services and computer hardware. It has rights to the G SUITE mark through its registration of that mark with various trademark offices around the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 5,708,231, registered March 26, 2019). Respondent’s <gsuitepromocodeusa.com> and <gsuitepromocode.net> Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they both fully incorporate Complainant’s mark, merely adding the generic term “promo code” and the “.com” or “.net” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). The <gsuitepromocodeusa.com> adds the geographic term “usa.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. It is attempting to trade off the goodwill of Complainant’s G SUITE mark, Respondent has not been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark, nor is Respondent affiliated in any way with Complainant, and Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names. Further, Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is using them to attract Internet users to its own web sites, for its own financial gain, and to phish for Internet users’ personal or financial information.
Respondent registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the G SUITE mark at the time it registered the Domain Names, it is attempting to attract Internet users to its web sites for commercial gain by creating confusion as to the affiliation or association of its web sites with Complainant, it is disrupting Complainants business, it is using the Domain Names to phish for personal and private information of Internet users, it used false information for the WHOIS records, and it is using Domain Names associated with a well-known company with which it has no connection.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. However, after serving the Complaint upon Respondent the Forum received two emails from maildomaininvestor@gmail.com, the email address listed for Respondent on the WHOIS reports (Complaint Annex 4), one of which stated “Hi. We are ready to transfer the domains right away but you need to do something about the following domains/websites also” and listed a number of domain names which incorporate Complainant’s mark but are not involved in this proceeding. This indicates a willingness on Respondent’s part to release its claim to the Domain Names if certain conditions were met, but since the Forum is without jurisdiction to address these other domains, the Panel must undertake the full analysis required by Policy ¶ 4(a).
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."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring the Domain Names:
(1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(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.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”), WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.3 (“In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent’s default—a complainant has failed to prove its case.”).
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
The G SUITE mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 5,708,231) on March 26, 2019 (Complaint Annex 12). Complainant’s registration of its mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).
Respondent’s <gsuitepromocodeusa.com> and <gsuitepromocode.net> Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. They both incorporate Complainant’s mark verbatim, merely adding the generic term “promo code” and the “.com” or “.net” gTLD. The <gsuitepromocodeusa.com> Domain Name adds the geographic terms “usa.” These changes are not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Names from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”), Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”). Additionally, by adding the descriptive terms “promo code,” Respondent greatly enhances the confusing similarity because those terms relate to the important and well-known discount element of Complainant’s G SUITE program. Capital One Financial Corp. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1582803 (Forum November 13, 2014) (finding that “the descriptive phrase ‘auto loan’ as included in [the <capitaloneautoloan.org>] domain name enhances the confusing similarity of the domain name.”). The WIPO Overview 3.0 at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity “typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.” Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the G SUITE mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent has used or has made 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) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names for a number of reasons: (i) Respondent has not been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark, nor is Respondent affiliated in any way with Complainant, (ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, (iii) Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead is using them to attract Internet users to its own web sites for its own financial gain, and (iv) Respondent is using them to phish for Internet users’ personal or financial information. These allegations are addressed as follows:
Complainant states that it has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark in any way, and that Respondent is not affiliated or associated with, or endorsed by it. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”).
The WHOIS report submitted as Complaint Annex 4 lists the registrant of the Domain Names as “Domain Investor / This Domain Is For Sale.” None of these names bears any resemblance to the Domain Names. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name), Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant uses its G SUITE mark to promote and offer a series of productivity apps and software tools for organizations, including email services, online collaboration and calendaring tools, and the like (Complaint Annex 9). As part of that offering, Complainant provides a referral program which enables customers to earn money whenever a new customer purchases the G SUITE product using a unique referral code. Respondent’s <gsuitepromocodeusa.com> Domain Name resolves to a commercial web site purporting to offer Internet users a promotional discount, or “promo code,” related to Complainant’s G SUITE products and services (Complaint Annex 13). In order to obtain a promo code the user is instructed to click a referral link box and then provide personal information, including his or her name and email address (id.). The <gsuitepromocode.net> Domain Name resolves to a commercial web site that advertises a promo code that enables the user to obtain a “20% flat and assured discount whenever you sign up for a person or business accounts [sic]” (Complaint Annex 14). The home page of this web site features the name “G Suite” at the top and states “We r the G Suite Experts” (Id). The site does not represent itself as being or sponsored by Complainant, and there is a disclaimer in the Contact Form stating “Note: G Suite is a trademark of Google. We don’t represent Google or G Suite here” (id). Both sites list direct hyperlinks to web sites sponsored by Complainant (Complaint Annexes 13 and 14). Neither of the sites resolving from the Domain Names impersonates or passes off as Complainant. They both, however, imply that they have some kind of affiliation or arrangement with Complainant and expressly claim that they can obtain G Suite promo code discounts for their customers. To the extent that they are able to obtain such discounts they are competing with Complainant and are using the confusingly similar Domain Names to further that enterprise. This is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use for the purposes of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(iii). j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. VIJAY S KUMAR / STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING SERVICES PVT LTD, FA 1647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) (finding that the disputed domain purports to offer for sale goods and services in the field of electronic marketing, which directly overlap with the services covered by Complainant’s registrations and offered by Complainant online, and therefore Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests through its competing use).
The web sites resolving from both Domain Names solicit the name, email address and, in the case of the <gsuitepromocodeusa.com> Domain Name, the country for which a promo code is sought, from persons who might want to take advantage of the services offered by Respondent. Complainant alleges that this amounts to phishing. The Panel disagrees. Phishing is a fraudulent attempt to obtain sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details by disguising oneself as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. As stated above, neither web site resolving from the Domain Names appears to impersonate or pass itself off as Complainant. Indeed, Respondent posts a disclaimer in the Contact Form immediately above the box on the <gsuitepromocode.net> web site where the visitor is invited to enter his or her name and email address. Respondent does not solicit any information apart from name and email address—it does not ask for sensitive, private information, such as passcodes or credit card or bank account numbers. For these reasons the Panel finds that phishing is not proven in this case.
Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence discussed earlier, Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s 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 the respondent’s web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent ‘s web site or location.
The evidence of Respondent’s conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use, based upon the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, Respondent is clearly using the confusingly similar Domain Names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web sites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web sites. Commercial gain results from the referral fees generated under Complainant’s referral program. Also, by registering and using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet traffic to Respondent’s own web site, where it offers the same discount opportunities offered by Complainant, Respondent is disrupting the business of Complainant. This fits squarely within the circumstances articulated by Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) and is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. Walgreen Co. v. MUHAMMAD SALEEM / WALGREENSGENERAL TRADING LLC, FA 1790453 (Forum Jul. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar <walgreensshop.com> domain name in furtherance of trading competitively on Complainant’s WALGREENS trademark demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).”), Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”), Dell Inc. v. Prashant Chhibber, FA 1785651 (Forum June 1, 2018) (“Respondent offers support services related to Complainant’s products that are in direct competition with the services Complainant offers.”). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Next, in registering these two Domain Names that infringe on Complainant’s mark, Respondent has prevented Complainant from reflecting its mark in those names, as described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). The question arises, however, whether the registration of as few as two domain names, both directed at a single complainant mark, is sufficient to establish a pattern for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Complainant cited two cases, both of which involved a large number of domains registered by the respondents in those cases. The WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 3.1.2 notes that as few as two abusive domain name registrations can suffice, but it also states that “Panels have been reluctant to find a pattern of abuse where a single UDRP case merely contains two domain names registered simultaneously by the same respondent directed at a single complainant mark.” The Domain Names were registered more than a year apart (Complaint Annex 4), but they are both directed at Complainant. A review of the cases cited in the WIPO overview 3.0 persuade the Panel that the two Domain Names involved here do not establish a pattern of abusive registrations for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). The circumstances of bad faith described in that paragraph are not proven.
Registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a particular trademark by a person with no connection to the trademark or its owner is evidence of bad faith. In this case, Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names incorporating the G SUITE mark but as discussed above has no connection with that mark or its owner, the Complainant. Policy ¶ 4(b) recognizes that mischief can assume many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark to which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of bad faith. See Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (“[T]he fact that Respondent chosen [sic] to register a well-known mark to which [it] has no connections or rights indicates that [it] was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue.”).
Finally, it is evident from the world-wide notoriety of Complainant’s G SUITE mark, from Respondent’s copying that mark verbatim into the Domain Names, and from Respondent’s offering discounts to purchase products and services offered by Complainant that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when it registered the Domain Names in April 2018 and May 2019 (WHOIS reports submitted in Complaint Annex 4 show registration dates).[i] The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and registering a confusingly similar domain name with actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in its mark has often been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gsuitepromocodeusa.com> and <gsuitepromocode.net> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
November 25, 2019
[i] Complainant’s USPTO registration for the G SUITE mark was issued on March 26, 2019 but the application for that registration was filed in November 2016, well before Respondent’s registration of the Domain Names. Complainant’s rights in the mark date from the application. Micha Advanced Health dba LEMYKA v. Shanshan Huang / This domain name is for sale, FA 1772893 (Forum Apr. 9, 2018) (“The relevant date for acquiring rights in a registered mark is the application filing date.”), Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Trademark protection extends back to the application filing date of a registered mark.”)
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page