|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v.
The Cupcake Patrol a/k/a John Zuccarini
Claim
Number: FA0403000245963
Complainant is Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“Complainant”),
represented by Ms. Anderson, of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation c/o Fox Legal, P.O. Box 900
(2121/700), Beverly Hills, CA 90213-0900.
Respondent is The Cupcake Patrol a/k/a John Zuccarini (“Respondent”), Provincia de Chiriqui, Volcan,
Chiriqui, Panama.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <allymacbeal.com>, <buffthevampireslayer.com>,
<buffey.com>, <buffeythevampireslayer.com>, <buffycontrelesvampire.com>,
<buffythevampierslayer.com>, <buffythevampirslayer.com>,
<buffythevanpireslayer.com>, <buffythevapireslayer.com>,
<buffyvampire.com>, <bufythevampireslayer.com>, <futerama.com>,
<planetofapes.com>, <planetoftheaps.com>, <sipsons.com>,
<speedvisoin.com>, and <speedvison.com> registered
with CSL d/b/a joker.com.
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.
John
J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on March 16, 2004; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 18, 2004.
On
March 18, 2004, CSL d/b/a joker.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <allymacbeal.com>, <buffthevampireslayer.com>,
<buffey.com>, <buffeythevampireslayer.com>, <buffycontrelesvampire.com>,
<buffythevampierslayer.com>, <buffythevampirslayer.com>,
<buffythevanpireslayer.com>, <buffythevapireslayer.com>,
<buffyvampire.com>, <bufythevampireslayer.com>, <futerama.com>,
<planetofapes.com>, <planetoftheaps.com>, <sipsons.com>,
<speedvisoin.com>, and <speedvison.com> are
registered with CSL d/b/a joker.com and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the names. CSL d/b/a joker.com has verified
that Respondent is
bound by the CSL d/b/a joker.com 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 23, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
April 12, 2004 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@allymacbeal.com, postmaster@buffthevampireslayer.com,
postmaster@buffey.com, postmaster@buffeythevampireslayer.com,
postmaster@buffycontrelesvampire.com,
postmaster@buffythevampierslayer.com, postmaster@buffythevampirslayer.com, postmaster@buffythevanpireslayer.com,
postmaster@buffythevapireslayer.com, postmaster@buffyvampire.com, postmaster@bufythevampireslayer.com,
postmaster@futerama.com, postmaster@planetofapes.com,
postmaster@planetoftheaps.com, postmaster@sipsons.com, postmaster@speedvisoin.com,
and postmaster@speedvison.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification,
the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
April 26, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John
J. Upchurch 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."
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.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <allymacbeal.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLY MCBEAL mark.
Respondent’s
<buffthevampireslayer.com>, <buffey.com>, <buffeythevampireslayer.com>,
<buffycontrelesvampire.com>, <buffythevampierslayer.com>,
<buffythevampirslayer.com>, <buffythevanpireslayer.com>,
<buffythevapireslayer.com>, <buffyvampire.com>, <bufythevampireslayer.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
mark.
Respondent’s
<futerama.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
FUTURAMA mark.
Respondent’s
<planetofapes.com> and <planetoftheaps.com> domain
names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PLANET OF THE APES mark.
Respondent’s
<sipsons.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
THE SIMPSONS mark.
Respondent’s
<speedvisoin.com> and <speedvison.com> domain names
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPEEDVISION mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <allymacbeal.com>, <buffthevampireslayer.com>,
<buffey.com>, <buffeythevampireslayer.com>, <buffycontrelesvampire.com>,
<buffythevampierslayer.com>, <buffythevampirslayer.com>,
<buffythevanpireslayer.com>, <buffythevapireslayer.com>,
<buffyvampire.com>, <bufythevampireslayer.com>, <futerama.com>,
<planetofapes.com>, <planetoftheaps.com>, <sipsons.com>,
<speedvisoin.com>, and <speedvison.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <allymacbeal.com>,
<buffthevampireslayer.com>, <buffey.com>, <buffeythevampireslayer.com>,
<buffycontrelesvampire.com>, <buffythevampierslayer.com>,
<buffythevampirslayer.com>, <buffythevanpireslayer.com>,
<buffythevapireslayer.com>, <buffyvampire.com>, <bufythevampireslayer.com>,
<futerama.com>, <planetofapes.com>, <planetoftheaps.com>,
<sipsons.com>, <speedvisoin.com>, and <speedvison.com>
domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Twentieth Century Fox, is one of the largest entertainment entities in the
world. Complainant produces and
distributes television programs around the world. Complainant has registered the ALLY MCBEAL, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE
SLAYER, FUTURAMA, PLANET OF THE APES, and THE SIMPSONS marks with the
U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” and international trademark offices). Complainant does not provide registration
dates, instead providing first use dates of September 8, 1997, March 7, 1997,
March 28,
1999, July 27, 2001, January 14, 1990, respectively.
Complainant has
not provided an exact date of the registration or the first use of the
SPEEDVISION mark. It acquired the mark
in July of 2001.
Respondent,
Cupcake Patrol a/k/a John Zuccarini, registered the <allymacbeal.com>,
<buffthevampireslayer.com>, <buffey.com>, <buffeythevampireslayer.com>,
<buffycontrelesvampire.com>, <buffythevampierslayer.com>,
<buffythevampirslayer.com>, <buffythevanpireslayer.com>,
<buffythevapireslayer.com>, <buffyvampire.com>, <bufythevampireslayer.com>,
<futerama.com>, <planetofapes.com>, <planetoftheaps.com>,
<sipsons.com>, <speedvisoin.com>, and <speedvison.com>
domain names on May 8, 2000, April 22, 2001, April, 10, 2000, April 22, 2001,
April 22, 2001, April 22, 2001, April 22, 2001, April
22, 2001, April 22, 2001,
April 22, 2001, April 22, 2001, April 13, 2000, August 12, 2001, July 31, 2001,
May 7, 2000, and May 31,
2000, respectively.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to re-direct the Internet
user to <yes-yes-yes.com>, a directory site with advertising,
or
<hanky-panky.com>, a pornographic site.
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."
In view of Respondent's
failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative
proceeding on the basis of Complainant's
undisputed representations pursuant to
paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it
considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
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; and
(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.
Although
Complainant has not provided registration dates for its ALLY MCBEAL, BUFFY THE
VAMPIRE SLAYER, FUTURAMA, PLANET OF THE APES,
and THE SIMPSONS marks, the Panel
finds that it has rights in these marks relating back to its first use in
commerce (i.e. September
8, 1997, March 7, 1997, March 28, 1999, July 27, 2001,
January 14, 1990). Compare Men’s
Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under
U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are
inherently
distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”) with SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood,
D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that
Complainant's trademark or service mark be registered
by a government authority
or agency for such rights to exist. Rights
in the mark can be established by pending trademark applications).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has rights in the SPEEDVISION mark based on its acquisition of
the SPEEDVISION company in July of
2001.
Complainant’s assertion of acquisition is adequate to also establish its
ownership of any goodwill created in the SPEEDVISION mark
by the mark holder’s
predecessor. Cf. United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.[1918] USSC 182; , 248 U.S. 90 (1918) ("There is no such thing as property in
a trademark except as a right appurtenant
to an established business or trade in connection
with which the mark is
employed.");
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2 (4th ed. 2002) (The
ICANN dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a
trademark or service
mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that
ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law
trademark
or service mark rights will suffice” to support a domain name
Complaint under the Policy).
The Panel finds
that Respondent’s <allymacbeal.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s ALLY MCBEAL mark.
The only difference is the addition of the letter “a” and the
elimination of the space between words, which does not significantly
distinguish the domain name from the mark.
See State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000)
(finding that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s
STATE FARM mark); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30,
2000) (finding the domain name <hewlitpackard.com> to be identical or
confusingly similar
to Complainant’s HEWLETT-PACKARD mark).
The Panel finds
that Respondent’s <buffthevampireslayer.com>, <buffeythevampireslayer.com>, <buffythevampierslayer.com>, <buffythevampirslayer.com>,
<buffythevanpireslayer.com>, <buffythevapireslayer.com>,
and <bufythevampireslayer.com> domain names are confusingly
similar to Complainant’s BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER mark. The only difference an omission of the
letters “y,” addition of the letter “e,” transposition of the letters “r” and
“e,” omission
of the letter “e,” substitution of the letter “n” for “m,”
omission of the letter “m,” and omission of the letter “f,” which does
not
significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark. See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18,
2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a
Respondent does not
create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain
name confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks); see also Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO
June 27, 2000) (finding that the domain names <beanybaby.com>,
<beaniesbabies.com>, <beanybabies.com>
are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark BEANIE BABIES).
The Panel finds
that Respondent’s <buffey.com> and <buffyvampire.com> domain names are confusingly
similar to Complainant’s BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER mark. The only difference is the addition of the
letter “e” and the omission of the words “vampire slayer” or omission of the
words “the”
and “slayer,” which does not significantly distinguish the domain
name from the mark. See Asprey & Garrard Ltd v. Canlan
Computing, D2000-1262 (WIPO Nov.
14, 2000) (finding that the domain name <asprey.com> is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s “Asprey &
Garrard” and “Miss Asprey” marks); see
also Maple Leaf Sports &
Entertainment Ltd. v. Toronto Maple Leafs!, D2000-1510 (Jan. 24, 2001)
(finding that the domain name <leafs.org> is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks, where
Complainant holds many trademarks that contain the
term “LEAFS”).
The Panel
finds that Respondent’s <buffycontrelesvampire.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER mark. The only difference is the addition of the
word “contreles” and the elimination of the words “the” and “slayer,” which
does not significantly
distinguish the domain name from the mark. See Space
Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298
(eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s
domain name combines Complainant’s mark with
a generic term that has an obvious
relationship to Complainant’s business); see also Pfizer, Inc. v.
Papol Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the
subject domain name incorporates the VIAGRA mark in its entirety, and
deviates
only by the addition of the word “bomb,” the domain name is rendered confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark).
Respondent’s
<futerama.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
FUTURAMA mark. The only difference is
the substitution of the letter “u” for the letter “e,” which does not
significantly distinguish the domain
name from the mark. See Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8,
2000) (finding that the domain names, <davemathewsband.com> and
<davemattewsband.com>,
are common misspellings and therefore confusingly
similar); see also Victoria's
Secret v. Internet Inv. Firm Trust, FA
94344 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding the domain name
<victoriasecret.com> to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademark, VICTORIA’S SECRET).
Respondent’s <planetofapes.com>
and <planetoftheaps.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s PLANET OF THE APES mark.
The only difference is the omission of the word “the” or the omission of
the letter “e,” which does not significantly distinguish
the domain name from
the mark. See State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15,
2000) (finding that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s
STATE FARM mark); see also Body Shop Int’l PLC v. CPIC NET & Hussain, D2000-1214 (WIPO
Nov. 26, 2000) (finding that the domain name <bodyshopdigital.com> is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s
THE BODY SHOP trademark).
Respondent’s <sipsons.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE SIMPSONS mark. The only difference is the omission of the
letter “m,” which does not significantly distinguish the domain name from the
mark. See Compaq Info. Techs. Group,
L.P. v. Seocho , FA 103879 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (finding that the domain name
<compq.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMPAQ mark because
the omission of the letter “a” in the domain
name does not significantly change
the overall impression of the mark); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev,
D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001)
(finding that the domain names <tdwatergouse.com> and
<dwaterhouse.com> are virtually identical to Complainant’s TD WATERHOUSE
name and mark).
Respondent’s <speedvisoin.com>
and <speedvison.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s SPEEDVISION mark. The
only difference is the transposition of the letters “i” and “o” or the omission
of the letter “i,” which does not significantly
distinguish the domain name
from the mark. See Google Inc. v. Jon G.,
FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be
confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and
noting that “[t]he
transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of
overcoming a claim of confusing similarity,
as the result reflects a very
probable typographical error”); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000)
(finding that the domain name <geociites.com> is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s GEOCITIES
mark).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
failed to produce a Response in this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel presumes
that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain
names. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO
Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as
an admission that they have no
legitimate interest in the domain names).
Furthermore, because Respondent failed to submit a Response, the Panel is
permitted to
make all inferences in favor of Complainant. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009
(WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to
accept as true all allegations of the Complaint”).
Respondent is
relying on Internet users who misspell Complainant’s marks. In addition, the disputed domain names
re-direct to either <yes-yes-yes.com> or <hanky-panky.com> domain
names. Both of these sites use
mousetrapping to bombard the Internet user with advertising. The Panel infers that Respondent is
receiving payment for its redirection of Internet traffic to
<yes-yes-yes.com> or <hanky-panky.com>. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or
services, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair
use of the domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June
7, 2000) (finding that fair use does not apply where the domain names are
misspellings of Complainant's mark);
see also Bank of America Corp. v. Out
Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (holding that
Respondent’s use of infringing domain names to direct Internet traffic to
a
search engine website that hosted pop-up advertisements was evidence that it
lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain
name); see also
Geoffrey, Inc. v. Toyrus.com, FA 150406 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2003)
(finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name
that it
used to redirect Internet users to an Internet directory website that
featured numerous pop-up advertisements for commercial goods
and sexually
explicit websites).
In addition,
there is nothing in the record, including Respondent’s WHOIS registration
information, which establishes that Respondent
is commonly known by any of the
disputed domain names, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS
information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly
known by’ the disputed domain
name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see
also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23,
2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when
Respondent is not known
by the mark).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant
alleges that Respondent is a typosquatter—creating domain names that are
misspellings of Complainant’s marks. In
regards to the <allymacbeal.com>, <buffthevampireslayer.com>,
<buffey.com>, <buffeythevampireslayer.com>, <buffycontrelesvvampire.com>,
<buffythevampierslayer.com>, <buffythevampirslayer.com>,
<buffythevanpireslayer.com>, <buffythevapireslayer.com>,
<buffyvampire.com>, <bufythevampireslayer.com>, <futerama.com>,
<planetofapes.com>, <planetoftheaps.com>, <sipsons.com>,
<speedvisoin.com>, and <speedvison.com> domain names,
Respondent is attempting to siphon off Complainant’s goodwill for its
commercial gain. This is evidence of
bad faith registration and use, purusant to Policy 4(a)(iii). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball
Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is
the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off
traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common
typing errors. Typosquatting is
inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”); see also Medline, Inc.
v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (“in typosquatting cases, such as this one, it would be difficult for
Respondent to prove to the Panel that it did not have actual knowledge
of
Complainant’s distinctive MEDLINE mark when it registered the infringing
<wwwmedline.com> domain name”); see also L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol, FA
96504 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 12, 2001) (finding that Respondent acted in bad
faith by establishing a pattern of registering misspellings
of famous
trademarks and names).
In addition, the
disputed domain names re-direct the Internet user to <yes-yes-yes.com>, a
directory site with advertising,
or <hanky-panky.com>, a pornographic
site. In addition, both sites employ
mousetrapping to expose the Internet user to advertising. The Panel finds that Respondent is creating
a likelihood of confusion to attract Internet users for commercial gain. This is bad faith registration and use,
pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv). See Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attracted
users to advertisements); see also Paws,
Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 125368 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2002) (holding that
the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to an established mark
to
divert Internet users to an adult-oriented website “tarnishes Complainant’s
mark and does not evidence noncommercial or fair use
of the domain name by a
respondent”); see also Worldwinner.com, Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol,
FA 175289 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) ("'mousetrapping' (the use of
embedded code in ads and web pages that causes new
pop-up ads to open when an
existing ad or window is closed, thereby creating an almost unavoidable
perpetuation of advertisements)
. . . serve[s] no useful purpose other
than to generate advertising revenue for website operators by tricking Internet
users into
clicking on ads in which they have no interest" and is thus
evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith).
Respondent
has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names that are confusingly
similar to others’ marks. Complainant
has provided ample evidence to establish this.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered the domain
names in order to prevent the owner from reflecting the mark
in a corresponding
domain name, and has engaged in a pattern of such activity, pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(ii). See Nabisco Brands Co. v. Patron Group,
D2000-0032 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2000) (holding that registration of numerous domain names
is one factor in determining registration and
use in bad faith); see also America Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com,
FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding a bad faith pattern of
conduct where Respondent registered many domain names unrelated
to its business
which infringe on famous marks and websites).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <allymacbeal.com>, <buffthevampireslayer.com>,
<buffey.com>, <buffeythevampireslayer.com>, <buffycontrelesvampire.com>,
<buffythevampierslayer.com>, <buffythevampirslayer.com>,
<buffythevanpireslayer.com>, <buffythevapireslayer.com>,
<buffyvampire.com>, <bufythevampireslayer.com>, <futerama.com>,
<planetofapes.com>, <planetoftheaps.com>, <sipsons.com>,
<speedvisoin.com>, and <speedvison.com> domain names
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John
J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: May 24, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/569.html