WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Softbank Corporation v. Omniscience (a.k.a. Stealth commerce a.k.a. Lost in space, SA, a.k.a. Telmex management services, Inc. a.k.a. Organized crime,Inc., a.k.a. Bilham solutions)
Case No. D2002-0868
1. The Parties
1.1 The Complainant is Softbank Corporation, of Tokyo 103-8501, of Japan, represented by Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP of United States of America.
1.2 The Respondent is Omniscience (a.k.a. Stealth commerce a.k.a. Lost in space, SA, a.k.a. Telmex management services, Inc. a.k.a. Organized crime,Inc., a.k.a. Bilham solutions), of London, UK SW1X 9Z, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ; Lost in Space, of Palma, Majorca, SA 1234 2222 ; Stealth Commerce, of British Virgin Islands, BVI, of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com.
3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 16, 2002. On September 17, 2002, the Center transmitted by email to Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On September 18, 2002, Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
3.2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 27, 2002. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 17, 2002. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent�s default on October 18, 2002.
3.3 The Center appointed Cecil O.D. Branson, Q.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on October 24, 2002. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
4.1 Complainant was founded in 1981, and since that time has along with its subsidiaries and affiliates been prominent in developments of digital information businesses in Japan and elsewhere in the world. Its services include e-commerce, e-finance, media marketing and broadcasting. It maintains a directory web-page at "" which provides links to Complainant�s primary corporate site at "", (with English and Japanese versions), with its affiliate Softbank Europe Ventures at "", its affiliate Softbank Venture Capital at "" and its affiliate Softbank Capital Partners at "". In each case, the domain name is registered to Complainant, or its subsidiaries or affiliated companies under permission from Complainant. Complainant also operates web sites through and for subsidiaries and affiliates such as Softbank EC Holdings Corporation at "", Softbank Frameworks Corporation at "" and Softbank Mobile Corporation at "", among others. Complainant also owns and operates a subsidiary by the name Softbank Commerce Corporation ("SCC"). Founded in March 2000, "SCC specializes in the distribution of IT-related products, services & solutions in the broadband environment and has holdings in excess of �3-billion. SCC maintains an Internet site at "" (with English and Japanese versions). Appropriate supporting documentation was supplied in support of the above.
4.2 Complainant owns more than 300 registrations of the service mark "Softbank" and variations thereof in 51 countries, including several Japanese registered marks and a United States trademark registration, U.S. Reg. No. 2,542,547, for use in connection with financial investments in the field of businesses providing goods and services via the internet. Complainant has also applied for a Japanese trademark for "Softbank Commerce," which certain subsidiaries have used since October 1, 1999 (collectively with the "Softbank" marks, the "Marks"). True and correct copies of supporting documentation accompanied the Complaint.
4.3 While little information is known about the Respondent as it failed to file a Response, a number of material facts related to its conduct have been uncovered by the Complainant. These are referred to in Paragraph 6.2 of this Decision.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
5.1 The Complainant pleads that the name is identical to Complainant�s common law rights in its Softbank Commerce trademark and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant�s Softbank registered trademarks and / or common law trademarks because the Domain Name incorporates the entire mark, with the addition of the term "commerce" and the ".com" gTLD.
5.2 The Complainant pleads that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name pursuant to Policy para. 4a(ii).
5.3 Complainant pleads that Respondent registered the Domain Name and is using it in bad faith contrary to para. 4a(iii) of the Policy due to the following circumstances:
5.3.1 Respondent registered the Domain Name to sell it at a profit contrary to the Policy para. 4b(i).
5.3.2 Respondent registered the Domain Name to prevent Complainant from obtaining it, as part of a pattern of such conduct contrary to Policy para. 4b(ii).
5.3.3 Respondent intentionally attracted users to its site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion contrary to Policy para. 4b(iv).
5.3.4 There is further evidence of bad faith by virtue of the Respondent providing false and evasive contact information.
B. Respondent
5.4 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant�s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 As no Response has been filed, Rule 5(e) applies; it instructs Panels to "decide the dispute based on the Complaint, in the absence of a Response." In this case, I find that, as a result of the default, Respondent has failed to rebut any of the factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by Complainant. In doing so, this Panel has not drawn any inferences from the default other than those that have been established or can fairly be inferred from the facts presented to the Panel by Complainant and that, as a result of the default have not been rebutted by any contrary assertions or evidence[1].
6.2 In an increasing number of decisions under the Policy issues have arisen about the appropriate Respondent. The identification of this entity is material when determining whether the proper person has been chosen as the putative Respondent against whom relief may be claimed. The importance of this lies in the requirement that it is only the applicant for Domain Name registrations that agree to be bound by the Policy and Rules. This has led to arguments being advanced that only the conduct of the registrant of the Domain Name(s) in question in a case will be material in the determination of whether the Complainant has proved the three elements necessary for it to succeed.
When addressing the subject "The Respondent" in the Complaint the Complainant says:
"Respondent in this administrative proceeding appears to have a practice of changing its contact information in order to avoid enforcement under the UDRP. In fact, Respondent appears to be a serial cybersquatter that has already spawned more than a dozen decisions under the UDRP under various names, as set forth below. When Complainant first discovered the infringing domain name in the early Spring of 2002, the Whois database identified the registrant as Stealth Commerce located at "Pasae Estate, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, BVI, VG." The Administrative, Billing and Technical Contacts were all identified as Robert Thorpe at the same address, with an e-mail address of netprophet@ and a phone number of 16462197207. A true and correct copy of a March 7, 2002 internal e-mail of Complainant (wherein the Whois database information was cut and pasted) is provided as Exhibit 1.
According to the Whois database, the registrant and contact information were changed on or about April 25, 2002, apparently to reflect a purported transfer from Stealth Commerce to one Lost in Space, SA, a company purportedly located at "6th Floor, 3510 South Ramblas Blvd, Palma, Majorca, SA 1234 ES 2222." No phone or facsimile numbers were provided. The Administrative, Technical and Billing Contacts were all listed as Juan Miguel with an e-mail address of Juan@. The given mailing address appears to be inaccurate. On June 4, 2002, Complainant sent a letter to Respondent at the given address demanding that it cease and desist its wrongful conduct, but the letter was undeliverable for lack of a valid address. As described below, Complainant also sent its cease and desist letter by e-mail on June 4, 2002, and ultimately received a response. A true and correct copy of the printout of the Whois database record for as of June 11, 2002, is provided as Exhibit 2. A true and correct copy of Complainant�s June 4, 2002, letter is provided as Exhibit 3. A true and correct copy of a June 17, 2002, letter from Federal Express documenting its inability to deliver Complainant�s June 4, 2002, letter is provided as Exhibit 4.
On July 17, 2002, after some communications between Complainant and agents of Respondent, the registrant and contact information for the infringing domain name were changed again, this time to reflect a purported transfer from Lost in Space to Respondent Omniscience. According to the Whois database, Respondent has a purported mailing address of "Box 29140, London, UK sw1x 9z, GB," but no street address is provided. The number 07092243246 is provided as both a telephone number and facsimile number. The contact information given for the Administrative and Technical Contacts is the same as the registrant information, with the addition of an e-mail address for one Howard Hughes at howard@. A true and correct copy of the printout of the Whois database record for as of August 28, 2002, is provided as Exhibit 6.
Notwithstanding the change in the Whois database whereby Respondent Omniscience became the new registrant of , Complainant received a responsive e-mail from juan@ (reiterating Respondent�s offer to sell the domain name) on August 6, 2002, after the supposed domain name transfer. This strongly suggests that any change in the Whois database was purely cosmetic and that never actually changed hands. A true and correct copy of an e-mail thread containing the August 6, 2002, e-mail response is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
All information known to Complainant concerning how to contact Respondent is from the Whois database and is as follows:
Name: Omniscience
Address: Box 29140
London, UK sw1x 9z, GB
Fax: 07092243246
Telephone: 07092243246
E-mail: howard@
Former Name or a.k.a.: Lost in Space, SA
Former Address: 3510 South Ramblas Blvd, 6th Floor
Palma, Majorca, SA 1234 ES 2222
E-mail: juan@
Former Name or a.k.a.: Stealth Commerce
Former Address: Pasae Estate
Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, BVI, VG
Former Telephone: 16462197207
Former E-mail: netprophet@"
Later in the Complaint, when dealing with the element of bad faith registration and use under para. 4(iii) of the Policy, Complainant says:
"In fact, it appears that Respondent is one of the most notorious cybersquatters on the Internet, with more than 15 UDRP decisions to its (ever-changing) name. See Wachovia Corp. v. Organized Crime, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0362, paragraph 6 (June 13, 2002) (recognizing that Lost in Space, Stealth Commerce, Organized Crime and Telmex Management Services are all the same entity). Omniscience, the purported registrant of , appears to be nothing more than the latest incarnation of the respondent in each of the following cases:
a. McCain Foods Ltd. v. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., WIPO Case No. D2001-1444 (February 25, 2002). Respondent was Telmex Management Services ("Telmex"), which, as demonstrated herein and below, is the alter ego of various other companies including Respondent. For example, Ms. Bradbury[2] appeared in the dispute on behalf of the respondent, claiming, as she did here, that the disputed domain name was registered on behalf of a purported client. Also, as in this case, the domain name resolved to a pornographic web site advertising escort services. The particular pornographic site was at , a domain name that is currently registered to none other than Respondent Omniscience. Respondent�s web site also linked to , which as already set forth is a domain name reseller intimately tied to Respondent.
b. Wachovia Corp. v. Organized Crime, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0362 (June 13, 2002). Respondent was Organized Crime, which is the current registrant of . S, in turn, is the domain from which Respondent�s correspondence in this case has emanated. Ms. Bradbury again appeared in the dispute, using an e-mail address at . That domain name is currently registered to Lost in Space and resolves to content similar to that featured at and . Moreover, the panel expressly recognized that Lost in Space, Stealth Commerce, Organized Crime and Telmex are all the same entity. Further, as here, the domain name resolved to . And as here, the Whois database listed Juan Miguel as a contact, with an e-mail address at .
c. Plymouth Sav. Bank v. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., WIPO Case No. D2001-1333 (February 27, 2002). Respondent was Telmex, and, as here, Ms. Bradbury offered to sell the domain name. In addition, Respondent�s contact information included an address at , which is currently registered to Lost in Space. As in other cases, the domain name resolved to .
d. Royal Bank of Scotland Group v. Stealth Commerce a.k.a. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., WIPO Case No. D2002-0155 (April 24, 2002). Respondent was identified as using both Telmex and Stealth Commerce, the latter of which was at one time listed as the registrant of "". In addition, Ms. Bradbury appeared in the dispute, claiming the domain name was acquired on behalf of a purported client. As in other cases, the domain name resolved to . Later, the domain name resolved to "", a similar site and the one to which "" currently resolves. "T" is currently registered to Respondent Omniscience.
e. Hyatt Corp. v. Stealth Commerce, WIPO Case No. D2002-0365 (June 24, 2002). The respondent was Stealth Commerce, but the panel noted the domain names were originally registered by Telmex. In addition, the site resolved at different times to adult escort services at , a domain name currently registered to Lost in Space, and .
f. Snapple Beverage Corp. v. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., WIPO Case No. D2002-0114 (April 22, 2002). Respondent was again Telmex, and Ms. Bradbury again claimed the domain name was obtained on behalf of a client. As in the present case, the domain name resolved to , which is currently registered to Respondent Omniscience.
g. Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., WIPO Case No. Decision D2001-0996 (March 14, 2002). The respondent used the names Telmex, Organized Crime and Stealth Commerce. The respondent also used an e-mail address at the domain . As here, the domain name resolved to a web page depicting a pornographic escort service.
h. Reuters Ltd v. Stealth Commerce a.k.a. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., WIPO Case No. D2002-0223 (May 8, 2002). The respondent used the names Telmex and Stealth Commerce. The panel also noted certain other cases involving the respondent. As in other cases, the domain name resolved to .
i. U.S. Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., WIPO Case No. D2002-0099 (April 5, 2002). The respondent was Telmex, and as in other cases, the domain names resolved to and .
j. Argyle Winery, Inc. v. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., National Arbitration Forum no. FA0202000104480 (March 4, 2002). Respondent was Telmex. Moreover, Ms. Bradbury appeared in the dispute, claiming to have obtained the web site on behalf of a client. In addition, the domain name resolved to .
k. Rio Prop., Inc. v. Stealth Commerce, National Arbitration Forum no. FA0203000105756 (April 22, 2002). Respondent used the names Telmex and Stealth Commerce, and the domain name resolved to a sexually explicit web site.
l. Marriott Int�l, Inc. v. Stealth Commerce d/b/a Telmex Mgmt. Serv., National Arbitration Forum no. FA0204000109746 (May 28, 2002). Respondent used the names Telmex and Stealth Commerce, and the domain name resolved to an explicit web site.
m. American Express Co. v. Stealth Commerce, National Arbitration Forum no. FA0203000106119 (May 8, 2002). Respondent was Stealth Commerce, and the domain name resolved to pornographic material.
n. National Cable Satellite Corp. v. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., National Arbitration Forum no. FA112000102820 (Feb. 4, 2002). Respondent was Telmex, and the domain name resolved to a web site offering sexual services.
o. Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., WIPO Case No. D2001-1428 (Feb. 8, 2002). Respondent was Telmex, and the domain name resolved to a web page for escort services.
p. Societe des Produits Nestle SA v. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., WIPO Case No. D2002-0070 (April 2, 2002). Respondent was Telmex, and the domain name resolved to a pornographic web site.
q. Digital Channel Partners Ltd. v. Bilham Solutions, WIPO Case No. D2000-1246 (December 14, 2000). In what appears to be Respondent�s seminal case, the respondent, then known as Bilham Solutions, claimed to be affiliated with Telmex. Moreover, the respondent in the case registered as one of its own domain names. That domain name is currently registered to none other than Respondent Omniscience."
In order to obtain the relief requested under the Policy, the Complainant must prove in the Administrative Proceeding that each of the three elements of para. 4a of the Policy are present:
6.3 (i)that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
The uncontradicted evidence of the Complainant satisfies the Panel that the Respondent has registered a Domain Name which is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant�s registered trademark.
6.4 (ii)that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
It is material to any ultimate decision made by Administrative Panels that there be a finding of who is the correct Respondent, as it is only in respect of this person that it must be proven that it has no rights or legitimate interests the Domain Name in question. Of late, the incidence of "cyberflying" has increased, particularly among habitual case hardened cybersquatters. In order to confuse or thwart a Complainant, from obtaining transfer of an improperly registered Domain Name, such registrants will, either before or during the dispute resolution process, alter the register. If a Complainant has filed against the wrong person, the case may be thrown out. Also when registration may be changed to show a common or generic name in respect of which the putative owner can claim rights or legitimate interests.
The Respondent has not asserted any rights or legitimate interests in respect to the Domain Name in question. The Complainant has asserted that Respondent does not possess any registered trademarks concerning the Marks and has never used the Marks in connection with any goods or services of its own and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the Marks, nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to apply for or use any Domain Name incorporating any of the Marks.
Complainant asserts that Respondent�s[3] many purported business names and the content of the Internet site currently available at do not indicate any legitimate business connection with the chosen Domain Name and that, until very recently, resolved to a web-site that was a picture gallery of pornographic images and that this site maintained the same content even after the purported transfer of the Domain Name from Lost in Space to Omniscience. Further links to pornographic sites were also shown. Evidence in support of each of the Complainant�s assertions was provided and therefore this uncontradicted evidence allows this Panel to find that on a preponderance of evidence before it the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name .
6.5 (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In support of its pleading in relation to this element Complainant provides evidence that an agent of the Respondent, asserted on behalf of her principal in response to a communication from Complainant, that she would "recommend a sale price of $2000" to her principal for a transfer of the name. There were further communications of the same nature. This Administrative Panel agrees with the Complainant�s submission that Respondent�s demand for $2,000 greatly exceeds its out-of-pocket expenses for registering the Domain Name and therefore it has been proved that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith. Complainant also asserted that the Domain Name was registered in order to extract profit from Complainant. This was supported by evidence linking the pseudonyms of the named Respondent, as set out above. This circumstantial evidence includes Ms. Bradbury acting in a similar capacity for a number of the other pseudonyms in other cases, reciprocal promotions of virtually identical web-sites, reciprocal transactions which bear the indicia of cyberflying, overlapping and the same contact details, along with other common nefarious activities, much of which is described in the 17 decisions referred to above in para. 6.1 .
6.6 In support of its assertion that Respondent registered the Domain Name to prevent Complainant from obtaining it as part of its pattern of such conduct contrary to Policy para. 4b(ii) the Complainant points to the documented history of bad faith Domain Name registration as above, including the blocking of trademark owners� rights to freely exploit Domain Names reflecting their marks. Along with the 29 infringing Domain Names referred in the cases mentioned[4] the Complainant further demonstrated that additional infringing Domain Names were found to be so due to conduct involving the Respondent under various incarnations of its aliases.
6.7 In support of its plea that Respondent intentionally attracted users to its site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion contrary to Policy para. 4b(iv), Complainant points to the fact that Respondent registered the Domain Name in question more than 20 years after Complainant�s first use of the Softbank mark and more than two years after Complainant�s first use of the Softbank Commerce mark, which are well-known through the world prompting Complainant to assert that accordingly, Respondent had knowledge (at a minimum, constructive knowledge) of the Marks at the time it registered . This Panel finds there is no logical explanation for the choice of as a Domain Name by the Respondent, except to associate it with the Marks of the Complainant, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use[5]. By redirecting inquiries to to a web-site which promotes escort services and displays pornographic material, the Respondent has been shown to intentionally attempt to attract for gain Internet users creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant�s mark as to source which constitutes evidence of bad faith under the Policy[6].
6.8 It has been held that the taking by a Respondent of deliberate steps to conceal its true identity and to make communications with it difficult is evidence of bad faith, and this Panel so finds in this case[7]. It should be noted that in WIPO Case No. D2002-0362, the Panel said "It appears that Respondent, Stealth Commerce, Lost in Space, and a fourth entity named Telmex Management Services all appear to be controlled by the same individual or individuals, who may or may not be Helen Bradbury [the "agent" in the instant case], Respondent�s Administrative Contact Juan Miguel, Mark Townsend, Marlies Bilham, or Antoine Rousseau. This consortium of individuals and seemingly non-existent entities appear to be engaged in a complex scheme of obtaining Domains based on others� trademarks and linking them to web-sites advertising escort services."
Complainant seeks, through the use of findings made in 17 previous ICANN decisions, to prove that the Respondent "is one of the most notorious cybersquatters on the Internet" and that "Omniscience, the purported registrant of , [is] nothing more than the latest incarnation of the respondent".
Numerous cases have found that conduct such as the deliberate concealment of the true identity of a registrant is probative of bad faith registration and use[8], this Panel finds also that this earlier activity was material in proving, as the Complainant has pleaded, that Respondent registered the Domain Name to sell it at a profit contrary to Policy para. 4b(i); that Respondent registered the Domain Name to prevent Complainant from obtaining it, as part of its pattern of such conduct, contrary to Policy para. 4b(ii) and that Respondent intentionally attracted users to its site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion contrary to Policy para.4b (iv).
A distinguished Panelist has said that each case under the Policy must be considered on the facts presented to the particular Panel which may not be the facts presented to another Panel[9]. Yet, numerous Panels have referred to findings made in previous cases concerning the Respondent then before them. Such evidence has been used to show that a Complainant knew what it had to prove in order to succeed on an issue under the Policy[10]; that a Respondent is not unsophisticated and is well aware of its rights[11]; that the Respondent has been engaged in a particular capacity in numerous earlier Domain Name disputes, with regard to a number of different names, and was found to be clearly engaged in a "pattern of such conduct" and guilty of bad faith registration[12]. The wrongful machinations of a notorious typo-squatter in many cases under the Policy where he has used different pseudonyms or alter egos have been used as evidence to prove his bad faith in subsequent decisions[13]. However, this evidence may not be conclusive for, as was said by a learned Panelist "even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes"[14]. I hold that use of findings in previous cases noted may be used against the named Respondent in this case.
6.9 For the above reasons, this Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. Decision
7.1 For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the Complaint has satisfied the applicable standard of proof, which must be met by the Complainant, which is a preponderance of the evidence.
7.2 The ruling of this Panel is that the registration of the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Cecil O.D. Branson, Q.C.
Sole Panelist
Date: November 4, 2002
Footnotes:
1. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Finlaw Agency, WIPO Case No. D2002-0378; Dell Computer Corporation v. Clinical Evaluations, WIPO Case No. D2002-0423; Terabeam Corp. v. Colin Goldman, WIPO Case No. D2001-0697.
2. "Ms. Bradbury" is the name of the person identified as "the agent" of the Respondent, below, in paragraph 6.5, who dealt with the Complainant's representative concerning a potential sale of the Domain Name in question here.
3. In its Complaint, the word "Complainant's" is, obviously mistakenly, substituted for "Respondent's".
4. The 29 disputed domain names were, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and .
5. Plymouth Savings Bank v. Telmex Management Services, WIPO Case No. D2001-1333.
6. Snapple Beverage Corp. v. Telmex Management Services, WIPO Case No. D2002-0114; Reuters Limited v. Stealth Commerce (a/k/a Telmex Management Services), WIPO Case No. D2002-0223.
7. Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Home Director, Inc. v. Home Director, WIPO Case No. D2000-0111; Geoffrey Inc. v. Babys Russian, WIPO Case No. D2000-1011; McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Moldava S.A., WIPO Case No. D2001-0304; Wachovia Corporation v. Organized Crime, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0362;
8. Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Home Director, Inc. v. HomeDirector, WIPO Case No. D2000-0111; Geoffrey Inc. v. Babys Russian, WIPO Case No. D2000-1011; McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Moldava S.A., WIPO Case No. D2001-0304;
9. Gloria-Werke H. Schulte-Frankenfeld GmbH & Co v. Internet Development Corporation, Gloria MacKenzie, WIPO Case No. D2002-0056.
10. CGNU plc v. Studio Promoart, WIPO Case No. D2001-1152; Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Relson Limited, WIPO Case No. DWS2001-0003.
11. E, Inc. v. U Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-1319.
12. BODEGAS POMAR, C.A. v. Jaime Renter�a, WIPO Case No. D2000-1808; Benetton Group SpA v. Domain4Sale, WIPO Case No.D2001-1498.
13. Sierra Trading Post Inc. v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-0263; At Home Corporation v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2000-1524.
14. e-Duction v. John Zuccarini, et al., WIPO Case No. D2000-1369.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy