BPI Communications, Inc. and VNU Business Media, Inc. v. Boogie TV LLC
Claim Number: FA0203000105755
The Complainant is BPI Communications, Inc., and VNU Business Media, Inc., New York, NY (“Complainant”) represented by Gene S. Winter, of St. Onge, Steward, Johnston & Reens, LLC. The Respondent is Boogie TV LLC, Livingston, NJ (“Respondent”) represented by Ari Goldberger of ESQwire.com Law Firm .
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <billboard.tv>, registered with The .tv Corporation.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, JR., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”) electronically on March 5, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 8, 2002.
On March 8, 2002, The .tv Corporation confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <billboard.tv> is registered with The .tv Corporation and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. The .tv Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the The .tv Corporation 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 March 11, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 1, 2002 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 firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
No Response was filed. Respondent filed Respondent’s Additional Response titled Additional Statement of Respondent Pursuant to Rule 7 of National Arbitration Forum Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy within the time permitted for additional submissions. This document will be considered the substantive Response in this proceeding.
On April 16, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Complainants are BPI Communications, Inc. and its successor in interest, VNU Business Media, Inc.
Complainants are in the business of sound recording popularity charts and video charts issued periodically, providing a directory of sources for the music recording industry, providing entertainment services in the nature of providing live music by a group or individual, and providing information and broadcasting services in the field of music and music-related entertainment over the Internet. Complainants are also in the business of promoting distinguished achievement in the advertising of the music and entertainment industries through the conducting of an awards program featuring an awards ceremony and festivities, audio cassettes, audio compact discs and phonograph records featuring music, magazines about the music and entertainment industry, posters, pamphlets recommending video recordings, and on-line computer based information services in the music and entertainment field.
The BILLBOARD Family of Marks has been in use for more than 100 years and the claim of various common-law rights extends back at least 100 years as well. As a result of exclusive, continuous and extensive use by Complainants, the BILLBOARD Family of Marks acquired significant goodwill, became famous and over the years came to represent quality and excellence in the full range of Complainant’s goods and services throughout the world.
The BILLBOARD Family of Marks are numerous and registered both in the United States and other countries. The Marks include BILLBOARD, registered in June 25, 1974 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for sound recording popularity charts issued periodically; BILLBOARD, registered August 15, 1991, for audio cassettes, audio compact discs and phonograph records featuring music; BILLBOARD, registered July 22, 1997 for clothing; BILLBOARD.COM registered November 10, 1998 for providing information in the field of music; and the word BILLBOARD in combination with other words such as “Live”, “Radio”, “Top Ten”, “Online”, “Bulletin”, “Radio” and others.
Complainant owns a number of domain names including <billboard.com>, <billboard.org>, <billboard.info> and others containing the word BILLBOARD in connection with other words.
The BILLBOARD Family of Marks is used all over the world through <billboard.com> and is used to designate the well-known magazine “Billboard,” the international newsweekly of music, video, and home entertainment that is circulated worldwide.
On or about June 2000, Respondent began using the <billboard.tv> domain name on the Internet in New York, throughout the United States and the world, to direct unsuspecting Internet users to Respondent’s site where various products and services are promoted, including in the field of music, art, dance, entertainment, fashion, film, health, interactive games, news and sports and offering goods and services covered by Complainants’ goods and services.
Respondent’s activities have led the public to erroneously conclude that the goods and services offered by Respondent originate with, and/or sponsored by, and/or authorized by Complainants.
On August 15, 2001 Complainants filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York against Respondent for Trademark and Service Mark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Dilution, Deceptive Trade Practices, Cybersquatting and Counterfeiting. Shortly after receiving notice of the lawsuit, Respondent modified its <billboard.tv> web site to appear as if the links are solely associated with the real estate industry, however the entertainment segments of the website still appear.
On August 31, 2001, Respondent filed a U.S. trademark application for BILLBOARD for computer search engine software. This mark has subsequently been rejected, with the USPTO citing the BILLBOARD Family of Marks as a determining factor.
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ registered BILLBOARD Family of Marks.
Prior to notice of the dispute, Respondent did not use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not been and is not commonly known by the domain name in any capacity, nor does Respondent have any relationship with or permission from Complainants for the use of any of the BILLBOARD Family of Marks. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Respondent has acted for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers to its web site as well as its <boogie.tv> website which then links to more sites in the music and entertainment industry.
By linking the domain name to Respondent’s <boogie.tv> web site, Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site. Respondent is attempting to benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainants to Complainants’ detriment.
The mark, BILLBOARD, is a famous and strong mark. Respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of Complainants’ prior rights when they registered the domain name.
Respondent is Boogie TV LLC. Respondent operates an Internet web site directory and search engine under the name iBoogie, which provides advertisements and links to web sites across a wide range of general categories including arts, home, regional, business, kids and teens, science, computers, news, shopping, games, recreation, society, health reference, sports, and world. IBoogie utilizes Respondent’s proprietary iBot search engine technology for which Respondent has applied for a United States Patent. The iBoogie directory and search engine is used for Respondent’s <billboard.tv>. web site. Among the real estate links offered at <billboard.tv> are links for real estate appraisers, associations, consultants, sales, rentals, training and employment.
In addition to <billboard.tv>, Respondent owns several other domain names containing only generic words, which it utilizes for web sites powered by the iBoogie directory. Like the <billboard.tv> web site, each of Respondent’s web sites contain the links for all the other general categories provided by the Boogie directory, but the first links to appear on each web site are those related to the topic associated with the generic domain name.
There is no evidence of bad faith registration or use on the part of Respondent. Respondent did not register <billboard.tv> with the intent to sell it to Complainants, to disrupt their business, to prevent them from registering their trademark, or to confuse consumers. While Complainant has alleged that Respondent modified the <billboard.tv> web site only in response to its federal lawsuit, in fact Respondent’s <billboard.hm> web site was activated with real estate content on May 25, 2001, prior to the lawsuit. Through inadvertence, the <billboard.tv> web site was not activated at this time, even though the content had already been developed for <billboard.hm>, an error not realized until after the filing of the federal court action.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name for its web site, BILLBOARD.TV a directory with links and advertisements associated with the sale and rental of real estate. Respondent has a legitimate interest vesting at the point of registration for the intent of using it as a real estate web site.
It is well established that the use, and intent to use, a common word domain name for a related web site constitutes use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The look and feel and operation of Respondent’s <billboard.tv> web site is entirely consistent with the other common-word-domain web sites Respondent operates. Respondent has expended substantial sums to develop its web sites.
Respondent has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name simply because it is a common generic word, which vested Respondent with irrevocable rights and a legitimate interest on the date of registration.
There is no evidence presented to show bad faith on part of Respondent. Complainant’s argument that Respondent’s web sites offer goods and services similar to Complainant does not support a finding of bad faith. That the web site happens to contain links to entertainment is not evidence that Respondent has intended to cause any confusion. Respondent’s web site directory is not dedicated to music. It has links to all sorts of categories of goods and services. There is nothing on the <billboard.tv> that would cause users to believe the web site is associated with Complainant.
C. Additional Submissions
1. Complainants are corporations, one of which is the successor in interest of the other.
2. Complainants are engaged in the music and entertainment business and have engaged is this business for a long period of time.
3. Complainants hold Registration Number 986,949 for the Trademark BILLBOARD with the United States Patent and Trademark Office with registration date of June 25, 1974 and showing first use in commerce of June 23, 1934. Complainants hold similar registrations for trademarks and service marks for BILLBOARD both alone and in connection with other words all of which predate the registration of the disputed domain name here at issue.
4. Complainants hold Registration Number 2,202,505 for the Service Mark, BILLBOARD.COM with date of registration of November 10, 1998 showing first use as November 7, 1996.
5. Complainants contend that they own domain name registrations for <billboard.com>, <billboard.org>, <billboard.info>, and other domain names containing the word BILLBOARD. Respondent does not contest these contentions so the contentions are taken as true.
6. Complainants have achieved identification and fame of the BILLBOARD mark through continuous use of it for nearly 60 years and particularly through the publication and distribution of the well-known magazine BILLBOARD, the international newsweekly that is circulated worldwide and commenced circulation as early as the year 1908.
7. Respondent is an organization that operates an Internet web site directory and search engine under the name iBoogie, which provides advertisements and links to web sites across a wide range of general categories of products and services.
8. Respondent’s method of operation is to register domain names of a generic character which are then utilized as web sites with content relating to the generic domain name but also containing links for all other general categories provided by the iBoogie directory, but the first links to appear on each web site contain the links related to the topic associated with the generic domain name.
9. Respondent registered the domain name <billboard.tv> on June 1, 2000.
10. In June of 2000, Respondent began to operate a web page at <billboard.tv> that announced “Billboard.tv is an advanced MetaSearch Engine for all your needs. It submits user query simultaneously to a multiple of Web-enabled search engines. The search results from different search engines are combined into one list. The system performs intelligent clustering of results and organized them into dynamically generated clusters by topic. The clustering is generated automatically in real time, and presented in an expandable hierarchical menu.” The letters “tm” were illustrated after the word BILLBOARD as if to suggest that Respondent held a trademark in the word.
11. On August 15, 2001, Complainants filed a lawsuit against Respondent in Federal District Court contending trademark and service mark infringement. Complainant elects to proceed under the ICAAN procedures even though there is a suit pending. The Panel decides to proceed to a decision under Rule 18 of Rules for Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy.
12. The domain name, <billboard.tv> and Complainants’ trademark, BILLBOARD, are identical.
13. The trademark BILLBOARD is not generic so as to deserve no protection under law.
14. Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
15. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainants have rights in the trademark BILLBOARD, for the purposes of this section by reason of their registrations of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Respondent does not dispute that the disputed domain name and trademark are identical. This concession settles this point. When no opposition is made to a contention, it must be found to be established. See Hoyts Cinemas Corp. v. Rage Warehouse, FA 105209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2002).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant shows that they have not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the BILLBOARD mark. No contention is made by either Complainants or Respondent that Respondent is the owner of any trade or service mark that is identical to the domain name. Indeed, Respondent’s attempted registrations of BILLBOARD and BILLBOARD.TV with the United States Patent and Trademark Office were rejected by the Trademark Examining Attorney based upon a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ trademark or service marks. Neither party contends that Respondent was known as BILLBOARD.TV prior to registration of the domain name. Complainants contend that they have exclusive rights to use the mark BILLBOARD. As a result of Complainants’ showing, and Respondent’s apparent lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, the burden must shift to Respondent to demonstrate rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. see Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000).
Respondent may demonstrate its rights and legitimate interests by any of the methods set out in Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or any sufficient justification not written in the Policy but adequate to prove rights and legitimate interests.
Respondent’s major contention is that the word, BILLBOARD, is generic. It is a mere common word to which Complainant does not have exclusive rights, Respondent argues. Respondent argues that it has a legitimate interest in the domain name simply because it is a “common generic word”, which vested Respondent with irrevocable rights and a legitimate interest in the domain name at the point of registration.
Respondent’s position is that it may defend a domain name dispute against the owner of a properly registered trademark or service mark that is identical to the domain name, which trademark or service mark has been registered for more than five years, on the ground that the trademark or service mark is “generic”.
A Panel must decide a complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. see Rule 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
The principles of law set out in Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) are found to be instructive. In that case the plaintiff contended infringement of its trademark against defendant based upon a registered trademark that had become incontestable. Defendant contended that the mark was merely descriptive and thus unenforceable. The Supreme Court first noted the public policy set out in the Lanham Act that requires that trademarks should receive nationally the greatest protection that can be given them. It next defined marks that constitute a common descriptive name to be generic. A generic term is one that refers to the genus of which the particular product is a species. Generic terms are not registrable, and a registered mark may be canceled at any time on the grounds that it has become generic. A merely descriptive mark, in contrast, describes the qualities or characteristics of a good or service, and this type of mark may be registered only if the registrant shows that it has acquired secondary meaning, i.e., it has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce.
The Supreme Court stated that without regard to a mark’s incontestable status, a mark that has been registered for five years is protected from cancellation on the grounds that it is merely descriptive only if the petition to cancel is filed within five years of the date of registration.
The conclusion was reached that the holder of a registered mark may rely on incontestability to enjoin infringement and that such an action may not be defended on the grounds that the mark is merely descriptive.
The dissenting opinion noted that where a mark had acquired a well-established secondary meaning, effect should be given to the incontestable language of the Act, but that a wholly different question is presented when the record establishes that a mark should not have been registered at all. If it can be proved that the registrant failed to establish secondary meaning at the time of registration or that the registrant is unable to establish secondary meaning in the case, then the incontestability provisions of the Lanham Act should not foreclose the issue.
In this domain name dispute there is no evidence or contention that Complainants failed to establish all necessary requirements of registration. It is clear from the Complaint and exhibits that the mark BILLBOARD has established secondary meaning.
Under the reasoning of either the majority or the dissenting opinions, a plaintiff in possession of an incontestable trademark registration should prevail in an infringement case as against a defense that the trademark is generic or descriptive.
The Supreme Court states that “With respect to incontestable marks, however,” (the Lanham Act) “provides that registration is conclusive evidence of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark…Mere descriptiveness is not recognized by” (the Lanham Act) “as a basis for challenging an incontestable mark “ Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189,196 (1985).
The interpretation of prevailing law made in the case by the Supreme Court suggests that a respondent should not be permitted to establish legitimate rights and interests in a domain name that is identical to complainant’s registered, incontestable trade or service mark on the ground that the trademark or service mark is “common generic word”, as Respondent contends in this proceeding. To permit this defense to establish legitimate rights and interests would seem to conflict with the scheme under which trademarks and service marks are established and protected. The Panel is aware of the contrary approach to this issue set out in Rollarblade, Inc. v. CBNO and Ray Redican Jr., D2000-0427 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2000).
A respondent should bear a substantial burden in attempting to show why it is justified in appropriating the registered, uncontestable trademark of another in a domain name. The contention that the trademark is merely a common word does not carry the issue. Respondent must show more. In this case, Respondent attempts to prove that BILLBOARD is in general use by attaching a list of trademarks that begin with the word BILLBOARD. Complainants own many of these marks. Respondent next does an Internet search for the word, BILLBOARD for the purpose of showing that the word is generally used. Again, many of the results relate to Complainants and their activities. Neither of these methods clearly illustrate that the word, BILLBOARD, is in widespread use as a descriptive expression as was the case in General Machine Prod. Co. Inc. v. Prime Domains, FA 92531 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000). Respondent’s showing is insufficient.
Respondent relies on the holdings in Cream Holdings Limited v. National Internet Source, Inc. D2001-0964 (WIPO Sept. 28, 2001); Energy Source Inc. v. Your Energy Source, FA96364 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2001); and Ultrafem, Inc. v. Warren R. Royal, FA97682 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2001) as authority that the registration of domain names containing common generic words vests rights and interests in the registrant without regard to any trademark or service mark registrations of another party. Cream Holdings Limited v. National Internet Source, Inc. and Energy Source Inc. v. Your Energy Source, were cases where complainants were asserting common law rights. In neither case did complainant have a registered trademark. Only in Ultrafem, Inc. v. Warren R. Royal, was there a registered trademark. The Panel did not protect the trademark “instead” because it was subject to substantial third party use and incorporated in 29 active trademark applications and appeared on 10 million web pages. None of these decisions nor any of the other decisions cited by Respondent on this issue persuade the Panel that Respondent ought to be found to have legitimate rights and interests in the domain name <billboard.tv>.
Complainant has advanced sufficient evidence to prove that BILLBOARD has achieved secondary meaning among consumers in the United States as denoting Complainants’ music and entertainment related business pursuits. Thus, BILLBOARD, is not a common generic word worthy of no protection. see Del Laboratories, Inc. v. Nett Corp., FA104555 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2002) considering whether “la cross” and “corn silk” were generic and the issue of secondary meaning.
Respondent fails to show that it has established legitimate rights and interests based upon the ground that BILLBOARD is a generic term.
Respondent fails to show that before notice of the dispute, it used or made demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services. A use of Complainants’ registered mark does not establish a bona fide offering of services. see Ciccone v. Parisi, D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2000), holding “To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.”
Respondent does not contend that it has been commonly known as <billboard.tv>.
Respondent does not contend a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain.
None of the methods of demonstrating rights and legitimate interests set out in the Policy have been shown. See Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Paragraph4(c).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name BILLBOARD.TV.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The burden is upon Complainants to show bad faith registration and use on the part of Respondent. Bad faith can be illustrated in any of the methods given in Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy or by any other method that should be recognized under the Policy as evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
Complainant has chosen to base its case on Paragraph 4(b)(iv). Complainants contend that by linking the disputed domain name to Respondent’s <boogie.tv> web site, Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site. By offering goods and services at <billboard.tv>, which are identical to Complainants’ goods, and services, Respondent is attempting to benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainants to Complainants’ detriment, it is argued.
The evidence supports the proposition that when first put on line, the web site at <billboard.tv> was linked to a number of other sites that offered goods and services in many categories. Respondent admits that the <billboard.tv> web site provided a search engine and links to sixteen general categories including arts, business, computers, games, health, home, news and sports. Review of the Boogie.tv web page shows that it offers “Boogie.TV-MetaSearch Infotainment engine for VISIBLE & INVISIBLE WEB. Find EVERYTHING! Search & Research, Inquire & Investigate. Movies, music, sports, games, cheats, downloads, gossips, celebrities & homework.” Complainants are in the music and entertainment business. The links associated with <billboard.tv> and <boogie.tv> appear to be in competition for the same Internet users, which Complainants are trying to attract with the <billboard.com> web site. There is clearly a likelihood of confusion between <billboard.tv> and BILLBOARD as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or of a product or service on the web site.
Respondent, though not conceding confusion, contends that since it converted <billboard.tv> to a web site focused on real estate and related services, no such problem can be seen to exist. That was not the view of the Trademark Examining Attorney considering Respondent’s application for a trademark for BILLBOARD.TV. The Trademark Examining Attorney, in considering the merits of the Registrant of BILLBOARD, as against the application for BILLBOARD.TV, stated as follows: “…the services are related. The goods and/or services of parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. They need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such, that they could be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods or services come from a common source…The applicant offers computer services in the nature of proving accesses to a global computer network for the purposes of searching information in the field of real estate, and electronic mail and online chat services in the field of real estate and housing. The registrant offers computer information services in the field of music accessible by means of the internet. Although the services are not identical, consumers are likely to believe that the applicant has merely expanded its services to provide information in the field of real estate. Consumers, therefore, are likely to believe the services originate from the same source…Registration of the proposed mark must therefore be refused.”
The Panel finds this assessment to be correct.
Respondent registered and used the word BILLBOARD to capitalize on the fame and goodwill associated with the word. Respondent intended to divert users to its own web site for commercial gain. Respondent’s explanation that it chose the word BILLBOARD as a “generic” word does not have a convincing ring when compared to the fame and established reputation of the Complainants’ registered mark that has been in commerce since 1937. Respondent does not state in the Affidavit attached as an exhibit to the Response that Respondent did not know of Complainants’ trademark at the time of registration of the domain name. The Affiant simply averred that domain name was “appropriate.” Even if Respondent truly believed that BILLBOARD was generic, when it was not, that does not excuse Respondent’s actions in registering and using <billboard.tv>. see Sony Corporation v. Times Vision Ltd, FA95686 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2001).
Respondent was on notice of Complainants’ registered trademark at the time of registration and use of <billboard.tv>. That alone is some evidence of bad faith. see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1312 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000); Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000).
It is the finding of this Panel that under all of the facts and circumstances of this case along with all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or of a product or service on the web site. see State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000); ESPN, Inc. v. Ballerini, FA 95410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000).
It is the decision of this Panel that the domain name <billboard.tv>, now registered to the Respondent, Boogie TV LLC, be transferred to the Complainants, BPI Communications, Inc. and VNU Business Media, Inc.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: April 30, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page