DECISION

iKNOWLEDGE, Inc. v. Hot Rod Email Services

Claim Number: FA0104000097066

PARTIES

The Complainant is iKNOWLEDGE, Inc., Lexington, MA, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Zick Rubin, of Palmer & Dodge LLP.  The Respondent is Hot Rod Email Services, Phoenix, AZ, USA (“Respondent”) represented by Glenn B. Hotchkiss, of Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is "iknowledge.com", registered with Network Solutions.

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.

Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”) electronically on April 16, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 16, 2001.

On April 17, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "iknowledge.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 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 April 17, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 7, 2001 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@iknowledge.com by e-mail.

A timely response was received and determined to be complete on May 7, 2001.

In accordance with Forum Supplemental Rule 7, a timely additional submission was received and determined to be complete on May 14, 2001.

On May 18, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

            Complainant is a software company with headquarters in Lexington, Massachusetts.  Complainant maintains a Canadian office in Edmonton, Alberta, and sales offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco. 

            Complainant provides technology solutions that enable Internet companies to provide content more effectively.

            Complainant was founded as Nereus Technologies, Inc. in 1998.  Nereus Technologies, Inc. changed its name to iKNOWLEDGE, Inc. in late 1998.  The name change was publicly announced on January 25, 1999.  The name change was widely reported on Internet news services.

            Since January 1999, Complainant has provided its software and services under the trademark and service mark “IKNOWLEDGE.”

            On February 13, 2001, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued to Complainant a registration on the Principal Register (No. 2,428,047) in International Classes 9 (computer software)  and 42 (computer services) reflecting a first use in commerce in January 1999.

            Respondent, Hot Rod Email Services, appears to be an informal name under which Heather Stapley and other individuals do business.

            Respondent appears to be a business that provides e-mail services and that has registered and stockpiled many domain names.

            On or about February 21, 1999, Respondent registered the domain name IKNOWLEDGE.COM  with Network Solution, Inc.

            To the best of Complainant’s knowledge, Respondent has never used IKNOWLEDGE.COM as the address of a Web site.

            Respondent and/or its Administrative Contact have registered more than 60 domain names in addition to IKNOWLEDGE.COM.

            Beginning in early 2000, representatives of iKNOWLEDGE, Inc. repeatedly attempted to contact Respondent by telephone, mail, and e-mail.  These attempts were without success.

            On May 5, 2000, a representative of Complainant spoke to the Administrative Contact for Respondent and was referred to two persons whom the Administrative Contact described as Respondent’s “agents.”  These agents informed Complainant’s representative that Respondent would be willing to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant in exchange for a payment of $1,000,000.00 and an equity stake in Complainant.   Complainant rejected the proposal.

            On March 21, 2001, Complainant’s attorney sent a certified letter to Respondent’s Administrative Contact.  The letter placed Respondent on notice that its registration and use of the Domain Name violated both the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the ICAAN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The letter requested Respondent to voluntarily transfer the Domain Name to Complainant at which time Complainant would promptly reimburse Respondent for its actual registration and maintenance fees, in a total amount not to exceed $500.00.  Respondent received the letter on or about March 26, 2001.  As of April 13, 2001, no response had been received to the letter.

            The domain name iknowledge.com is identical to Complainant’s trade name and registered trademark and service mark IKNOWLEDGE.

            Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.  Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor is it otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark.

            There is no indication that Respondent has used IKNOWLEDGE or any version thereof as its name or for any legitimate purpose, either prior to or subsequent to its registration of the Domain Name.  The only use that Respondent has made of the Domain Name has been to stockpile it and offer it for sale to Complainant.

            Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith by offering to sell it to Complainant for a valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs.

            Respondent’s bad faith is shown by Respondent’s conduct of registering and stockpiling dozens of names in which it has no legitimate rights, while failing to make active use of them.

            Respondent’s use of iknowledge.com would cause confusion with Complainant’s registered mark, thus infringing Complainant’s marks.

            Respondent’s bad faith is also demonstrated by its failure to respond to the certified letter sent by Complainant.

            B. Respondent

            Respondent is in the vanity e-mail business, among other related businesses. 

            Heather Stapley is the designated Administrative Contact for the Domain Name.

            In addition to Hot Rod E-Mail Services, Stapley and her business affiliates also operate a second vanity e-mail service, My Own E-Mail.

            The Domain Names and other names registered to Respondent or its Administrative Contact are part of a business strategy for these vanity e-mail businesses, and have not been registered for purposes of selling those names for a profit.

            Complainant did not apply for registration of the Mark until July 6, 1999, which Respondent believes is after Complainant allegedly first contacted Respondent about a transfer of the Domain Name and roughly five months after Respondent registered the Domain Name.

            Respondent has no record of a contact between Complainant’s representative and an “agent” of Respondent wherein an offer to sell the Domain Name for $1,000,000.00 and an equity stake in Complainant was allegedly made.  Respondent can state that no representative of Complainant ever spoke to Stapley, and no one else had the authority to make any offers regarding the Domain Name.

            Respondent received the certified letter from Complainant in late March of this year with the content described by Complainant.

            Complainant offers no evidence that anyone is confused by the similarity of its Mark and Respondent’s Domain Name.  No one is confused, and the reasons no one is confused is because Respondent is not running a website using the Domain Name or otherwise offering goods or services through the Domain Name.  This is not a case of competing websites.  Respondent is engaged in a non-competing vanity e-mail business.

            Respondent is one of two related vanity e-mail businesses.  The first business—My Own E-Mail—has been operating since 1997, and allows its subscribers to create personalized vanity e-mail addresses for themselves by selecting one of nearly 300 domain names and combining their first name with the selected domain name.  In this fashion, My Own E-Mail has built a subscriber database of more than two million people, which it then makes available to advertisers.  My Own E-Mail regularly adds new domain names to the list.  My Own E-Mail must have ready access to a stockpile of domain names.  The business strategy—not a motive to cybersquat—accounts for the fact that Respondent holds a number of domain names that it is not currently using.

            Respondent (Hot Rod E-Mail Services) is the second of the two related vanity e-mail businesses.  The business concept is the same.  The distinction between My Own E-Mail and Respondent is that while the former does not focus on any subset of potential subscribers, the latter will focus on car enthusiasts.

            These facts demonstrate Respondent’s preparation to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of services.

            Complainant offers no evidence that a purported offer to sell the Domain Name happened.  Even taking the allegation as true, Complainant contacted Respondent about a sale of the Domain Name, not the other way around.

            Respondent did not contact Complainant in the five months between registration and the contact initiated by Complainant, and has never contacted Respondent regarding the Domain Name.

            An offer to sell a domain name is not bad faith.

            Respondent has received e-mails from seven different persons seeking the buy the Domain Name.  Respondent has not responded to those offers, other than to indicate that is has no interest in selling the Domain Name.  If Respondent were a profiteer, Respondent would be soliciting offers to sell the Domain Name, not rejecting them.

            Complainant’s evidence fails to demonstrate that Respondent registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant.

            Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s letter is not evidence of bad faith.

            Complainant is a software company.  Despite its professed Internet expertise, Complainant did not register its company name as a domain name when it changed the name of the company to IKNOWLEDGE, Inc. in 1998.  Complainant failed to register the Domain Name when it publicly announced its name change in January 1999.  Complainant failed to seek trademark protection at the time of the corporate name change or the public announcement.  Respondent was unaware of Complainant, whose corporate existence had been publicly announced less than one month before registration of the Domain Name on February 21, 1999.  Two full years after Respondent registered the Domain Name, Complainant was granted a federal trademark on February 13, 2001.

            Complainant’s strategy was to set up Respondent by inducing Respondent to offer the Domain Name for sale, file for trademark protection on a mark, which incorporates Respondent’s Domain Name, and when the demand is refused, take legal action.  This represents reverse hijacking of Respondent’s Domain Name.

           

C. Complainant’s Additional Submission

            Complainant responds to the allegation of Respondent that it was “without sufficient information” to respond to Complainant’s allegations regarding the offer to sell the Domain Name for $1,000,000.00 plus equity by offering the Affidavit of  Robert J. Welna, a Vice President of Complainant who had the conversations regarding the sale of the Domain Name.  On January 14, 2000, Welna telephoned Stapley, the listed Administrative Contact for the IKNOWLEDGE.COM domain name.  Welna informed Stapley that Complainant was interested in obtaining the domain name.   Stapely told Welna that her husband was the owner of the Domain Name.  After the initial telephone conversation, Welna made a number of follow-up phone calls to Stapley’s telephone number.  The calls were not returned.  On May 5, 2000, Welna reached Stapley.  Stapley told Welna that she would have Hot Rod E-Mails’s agents call him back.  That same day, Welna received a call from two men who identified themselves as David Sloan and Randy Howard who explained that they were the agents of Respondent.  Sloan and Howard asked about the size, nature and financial resources of Complainant.  They stated that IKNOWLEDGE.COM was a very valuable domain name, which they believed was worth several million dollars.  They stated that Respondent would be willing to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant for $1,000,000.00 and an equity stake in Complainant.  Welna did not offer to pay Respondent any money for the Domain Name.  Sloan and Howard invited Welna to call them back after consultation with Complainant’s other officers and gave Welna their telephone numbers.  After this Welna made two follow-up telephone calls to Sloan and Howard.  Respondent did not lower its demand and Complainant made no offer of payment.

            Complainant contends that e-mail messages and other circumstances shown in the documents attached as exhibits in this Record prove that David Sloan is an associate of Stapley and a participant in Respondent through ownership and involvement with the domain names registered to Respondent.

            Complainant points out that though Stapley, answering for Respondent and the only party making affidavit in behalf of Respondent, denies that she was aware of Complainant’s use of IKNOWLEDGE as its mark prior to registration of the Domain Name, no allegation is made that Sloan or any of the other associates involved in Respondent had no such knowledge.

FINDINGS

1. Complainant is a software company organized in the year 1998 under the name Nereus Technologies, Inc.

2. Nereus Technologies, Inc. changed its name to iKNOWLEDGE, Inc., a Delaware corporation, on a date not revealed in the Complaint but upon a date late in the year 1998.

3. The Corporation’s change of name was publicly announced on January 25, 1999 and was reported on Internet news services.

4. Complainant has used the name iKNOWLEDGE in commerce since January 1999.

5. Respondent is a business made up of an unknown number of individuals who operate a vanity e-mail business in affiliation with another vanity e-mail business known as My Own E-Mail. The inference is made that Respondent is a partnership or some other type of business organization operating under a trade name.

6. Respondent holds a large number of domain name registrations.  On most of the registrations Heather Stapely is shown as Administrative Contact with several other individuals shown as Technical Contact.  On some of the registrations, David Sloan is shown as Administrative Contact with Heather Stapley shown as Technical Contact.  Both Sloan and Stapley show the same address. 

7. Stapley, Sloan and the other individuals shown on the registrations made on behalf of Respondent are owners or agents of Respondent.

8. Heather Stapley, on behalf of Respondent, registered the Domain Name, iknowledge.com on February 21, 1999.

9. On July 6, 1999, Complainant filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, to obtain protection for the word IKNOWLEDGE showing on the application first use in commerce as “1-0-99.”

10. The United States Patent and Trademark Office granted a Trademark/Service Mark on the Principal Register to Complainant for IKNOWLEDGE on February 13, 2001.

11. Complainant contends that beginning in “early 1999” its representatives attempted to contact Respondent regarding the domain name.  No evidence is presented nor are such attempts included in the Affidavit of Robert J. Welna.  This attempted contact is unproved.

12. Complainant does not allege that it checked the status of the domain name at any time or made any plans to register IKNOWLEDGE as its domain name.  It can be inferred that at some time prior to January 14, 2000, some agent or employee of Complainant checked the status of the domain name iknowledge.com, since Robert J. Welna had the name and telephone number of Respondent’s Administrative Contact, Heather Stapley, on that date.

13. Robert J. Welna states in his Affidavit that he telephoned Heather Stapley on January 14, 2000, regarding Complainant’s interest in obtaining the domain name.  Welna attaches telephone records to support his contact.  Heather Stapley in her Affidavit on behalf of Respondent states that she has never spoken with any representative of Complainant.  This creates a serious question of credibility of Affidavit testimony.  Welna states that he made further telephone contact with Stapley on May 5, 2000, at which time Welna states that he was told by Stapley that agents of Respondent would contact him.  That same day, Welna states that he was telephoned by individuals identifying themselves as David Sloan and Randy Howard who proposed to sell the IKOWLEDGE Domain Name to Complainant for $1,000,000.00 and an equity share in Complainant.  Stapley denies having knowledge of anyone having a conversation on behalf of Respondent with Complainant regarding the sale of the Domain Name.  Based upon all of the evidence, this Panel concludes that the telephone conversations of January 14 and May 5, 2000, between Welna and Stapley did transpire.  The Panel also concludes that the telephone conversation between Welna , Sloan, and Howard transpired on May 5, 2000.

14. Respondent has not used the Domain Name, iknowledge.com as a web site or e-mail address from the date of registration until the present day.

15. The trademark IKNOWLEDGE is identical to the Domain Name iknowledge.com

16. Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name iknowledge.com.

17. Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

      The Trade name and registered Trademark IKNOWLEDGE is identical to the Domain Name iknowledge.com.  See Snow Fun, Inc. v. O’Connor, FA 96578 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2001) which held that TERMQUOTE.COM was identical to Complainant’s TERMQUOTE Mark.  See also Pomellato S.P.A. v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) which held that the generic top level domain “com.” after a name is of no relevance in the determination of similarity.  Complainant’s use of the trade name and later registration of it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office establishes sufficient rights in Complainant to satisfy this element. Complainant prevails on this issue.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

      Complainant contends that its name is iKNOWLEDGE, Inc. and that it has used IKNOWLEDGE in commerce as its trademark since January of 1999 and that it owns a trademark in IKNOWLEDGE.  Complainant states that if has not authorized Respondent to use the IKNOWLEDGE name nor is associated with Respondent in any way. Complainant claims exclusive rights to use the Mark. See America Online, Inc. v. Tencent Communications Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000).  With such an initial showing being made by Complainant, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. See Bloomberg L.P. v Aronsky, FA 96681 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 11, 2001).

      Respondent may show its rights and legitimate interests in any of the ways listed in Paragraph 4(c) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy or in any other manner not listed but pertinent to the case.

      Respondent makes no contention that it has been commonly known by the Domain Name.  Paragraph 4 (c)(ii) is inapplicable.

      Respondent makes no contention that it is making a legitimate noncommercial use of the domain name, without intent to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.  Paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not applicable.

      Respondent does contend that before any notice to it of the dispute, its use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services is present in this case. This is the defense set out in Paragraph 4(c)(i) and if Respondent can show it, then Respondent’s rights and interests in the domain name are proved.

      Respondent contends that its business requires the stockpiling of a large number of domain names for the purpose of the domain names being offered to the public as vanity e-mail addresses.  Complainant contends that Respondent has made no use of the Domain Name from the date of registration until the date of this proceeding.  Respondent alleges that it “is not running a website using the Domain Name or otherwise offering goods or services through the Domain Name.”  Respondent does contend that because of the nature of its vanity e-mail service, the stockpiling of this Domain Name constitutes a “preparation to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of services.”   Complainant contends that stockpiling domain names by Respondent, as part of a vanity e-mail business is in itself a violation of the Policy. That is not necessarily true.  A vanity e-mail service is not per se illegitimate. See International Raelian Religion and Raelian Religion of France v. Mailbank.com Inc. D2000-1210 (WIPO Apr. 4, 2001).

But the operator of a vanity e-mail service has no special authority to violate the trademark rights of others. See Connolly v. Stewart, D2000-1549 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001).  See also Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Denny Hammerton and the Jimi Hendrix Fan Club, D2000-0364 (WIPO Aug. 15, 2000). 

      The question here presented is whether passively holding a domain name in a stockpile of domain names for possible use in the future constitutes a use or preparation to use the domain name as contemplated in Paragraph 4(c)(i).  Complainant makes the argument that if that proposition is true, then any vanity e-mail service could never be challenged on the issue of legitimate rights and interests.  Complainant’s argument has some merit.  The Panel doubts that it was the intention of the drafters of the Policy to include stockpiling of domain names to be held passively for possible future use as a use or demonstrable preparation for as outlined in the Policy. The Panel will not give Paragraph 4(c)(i) that interpretation. Compare General Electric Co. v. Kasinga, D2000-0389 (WIPO July 14, 2000) where it was found that if registration and posting of an “under construction page” at the domain name address could be taken to be use or preparation for use to show legitimate rights and interests as required in the Policy, that would cause an illogical result under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the policy, since under such an interpretation no complainant could succeed on a claim of abusive registration. Compare also Playboy Enterprises Int’l., Inc. v. Hector Rodriquez, D2000-1016 (WIPO Nov. 2000) in which the Panel stated “…the Respondent’s efforts in merely registering and stockpiling the contested domain names for subsequent sale without more, fails to constitute any bona fide offering of goods or services under each such domain name, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of each such name without intent for either commercial gain or to misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”

      Vanity e-mail services must be judged as others are judged under this Paragraph.  Respondent has not used the Domain Name in question as a web site or e-mail address for more than two years.  Respondent simply holds the Domain Name.

      “After two years of nonuse, it is inferred that a Respondent does not have a bona fide intent to use the domain name.  Internet Billing Co. Ltd. v. Fundu Technologies, FA 95547 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000), See also Connolly v Stewart, D2000-1549 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001).  “Respondent’s failure to make any use of the domain name at issue, during several years of registration, indicates a lack of legitimate interests.” Decisioneering, Inc. v. PA Gordon, FA 96668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2000). 

      The Panel finds that Respondent fails to show rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name IKNOWLEDGE.COM under the provisions of Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

      Complainant prevails on this issue.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

      Respondent relies on the Affidavit of Heather Stapley.  She states that she registered the Domain Name on February 21, 1999, and at the time she had never heard of iKnowledge.  She only became aware of their existence in late March 2001 when she received a certified letter from Complainant demanding transfer.  The registration is approximately one month after Complainant began using IKNOWLEDGE in commerce and approximately six months before Complainant filed for a trademark.  This statement is supported in the Record by exhibits attached in the Complaint showing that Respondent holds a number of domain name registrations beginning with the letter “i”.

Respondent registered “icallcenter.com” on February 2, 1999; “ibilling.com” on October 26, 1997; “iexam.com” on February 21, 1999; “iwoman.com” on October 17, 1997; “ibtmember.com” on August 16, 1999; “ibulletin.com” on December 22, 1998 and “ibtmail.com” on August 16, 1999.  The inference could be drawn that Respondent was simply trying to register a large number of domain names beginning with “i” and IKNOWLEDGE was one of them chosen at random.

      The inference could also be drawn, as Complainant thinks it should, that the individuals making up Respondent, who it can be taken are somewhat expert in domain name choice since it is their business, and cognizant of what is reported on the Internet regarding names and domain names, that one of them saw the name change reported on the Internet of Complainant prior to registration of IKNOWLEDGE.

      The burden is upon Complainant to make a case of bad faith registration and use to warrant transfer.  Complainant can do so in any of the ways set in Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. 

      Since Complainant did not apply for trademark protection until some months after Respondent registered the Domain Name, and only acquired a registered trademark in 2001, Respondent was not on constructive notice of Complainant’s trademark rights.  At the time of registration of the Domain Name, Complainant had common law rights in IKNOWLEDGE.  No proof has been presented that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s common law rights.

      No proof exists upon which a finding can be made that Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name nor is there convincing evidence of a pattern of such conduct. See Paragraph 4(b)(ii).

      Complainant generally bases its bad faith claim on the content of the Affidavit of Robert J. Welna stating that he contacted Heather Stapely on January 14, 2000 regarding transfer of the Domain Name and again on May 5, 2000 after which he was contacted by Sloan and Howard who asked for $1,000,000 and an equity share in Complainant to transfer the name.  Respondent denies these conversations, which places the Panel in a position of making credibility judgments on the sworn testimony of Welna and Stapley. The Panel concludes that telephone conversations were made between Welna and Stapely on the dates sworn to by Welna and that a telephone conversation was held between Welna, Sloan and Howard. This finding casts a cloud upon the entire content of Respondent’s Affidavit. Complainant insists that the less than candid approach taken by Respondent in the Affidavit should be taken as evidence of bad faith. The Panel is hesitant to make such a judgment or to base a decision on the contested content of the telephone conversations. A domain name dispute proceeding is not a good forum to test the credibility of witnesses. See Centennial Communications and Centennial de Puerto Rico v. Centennial, D2000-1385 (WIPO Jan. 31, 2001). 

      However, it is clear that even though there has been no use of the Domain Name since registration, any use made of it by Respondent at any time in the future with knowledge of Complainant’s common law rights and registered trademark rights, will be an intentional attempt to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or a service on Respondent’s web site.  This is a consequence the Policy is designed to avoid. See Paragraph 4(b)(iv).

      Under all of the facts and circumstances of this case and proper inferences that can be drawn therefrom, The Panel finds that Respondent is using the Domain Name IKNOWLEDGE in bad faith.

DECISION

            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE DOMAIN NAME, IKNOWLEDGE.COM, NOW REGISTERED TO HOT ROD EMAIL SERVICES, BE TRANSFERRED TO iKNOWLEDGE, INC.

Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Esq.

Dated: May 25, 2001

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2001/1025.html