WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Gray Television Group, Inc. v. Manila�Industries,�Inc.
Case No.�D2007-0504
1. The Parties
Complainant is Gray�Television�Group,�Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, United�States�of�America, represented by Leventhal�Senter and Lerman�PLLC, United�States�of�America.
Respondent is Manila Industries, Inc., Santa Ana, California, United�States�of�America.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names
are registered with Compana LLC.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on April�2,�2007. On April�4,�2007, the Center transmitted by email to Compana LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On April 16, 17 and�19,�2007, Compana LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative and technical contacts. 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”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs�2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April�23,�2007. In�accordance with the Rules, paragraph�5(a), the due date for Response was May�13,�2007. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May�14,�2007.
The Center appointed John R. Keys, Jr. as the sole panelist in this matter on May�22,�2007. 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
Complainant owns and operates 36 broadcast television stations in the United�States�of�America. All U.S. television stations use as their identifying name a unique four-letter call sign beginning with either a “W” or a “K”. These call signs are assigned to the station by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an agency of the United States Government.
Eighteen (18) of Complainant’s television stations are identified by the call signs listed in Table I, below. Complainant has obtained trademark registrations from the United�States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on the Principal Register of the United�States of America for seven of these call sign marks and has applications pending for registration of another eight of the call signs. There are three of the call signs for which trademark applications have not been filed. The dates of first use of the call sign trademarks for the television stations range from 1952 to the most recent in 2004.
Each of the stations has registered a domain name. Sixteen of the 18 stations have a domain name based directly on the station’s call letter mark. These domain names were created from as early as 1995 through the most recent in 2006.
The foregoing information is summarized in Table I.
TABLE I
Complainant’s
Call Sign Trademarks
Trademark
Registration Date
Trademark
Filing Date
Date of First Use
Of Mark
Complainant’s
Domain Name
Creation Date
KBTX-TV
3/27/2007
5/30/2006
1979
10/11/1995
KKCO
N/A
1996
1/28/1997
KKTV
3/27/2007
5/30/2006
1952
5/8/1995
KOLO
9/23/2006
1978
2/14/1996
KWTX
7/25/2006
1978
4/24/1996
KXII
10/24/2006
1980
3/10/1997
WBKO
3/27/2007
5/30/2006
1971
2/19/1997
WCAV
11/6/2006
2004
4/12/2004
WCTV
5/30/2006
1955
12/19/1997
WEAU-TV
3/27/2007
6/30/2006
1979
5/20/1996
WIBW-TV
3/27/2007
7/25/2006
1980
7/25/1996
WIFR
6/29/2006
1979
5/10/1997
WILX-TV
N/A
1978
4/7/1999
WNDU-TV
N/A
1979
3/19/1996
WOWT
4/7/1987
1/23/1986
1975
12/10/1995
WRDW-TV
3/27/2007
6/2/2006
1979
9/9/2006
WSAZ
6/21/2006
1978
3/30/2004
WVLT-TV
6/21/2006
1997
9/6/2003
Respondent has registered 32 domain names, each of which incorporates to some extent one of Complainant’s four-letter television call sign marks. Respondent began registering these domain names December�27,�2004, with the most recent registrations on January�6,�2006. The Respondent’s domain names and creation dates are set forth in Table II, below.
TABLE II
Complainant’s Call Sign
Trademarks
First Use
Of Trademark
Respondent’s Registered
Domain Names
Date of Domain
Registration
KBTX-TV
1979
10/23/2005
KKCO
1996
12/06/2005
12/31/2005
4/12/2005
4/22/2005
KKTV
1952
2/19/2005
KOLO
1978
5/7/2005
6/3/2005
KWTX
1978
2/19/2005
11/15/2005
KXII
1980
1/6/2006
11/15/2005
6/16/2005
WBKO
1971
wbkonewschannel13
11/29/2005
WCAV
2004
12/6/2005
WCTV
1955
2/24/2005
WEAU-TV
1979
11/15/2005
WIBW-TV
1980
2/10/2005
WIFR
1979
5/7/2005
10/23/2005
2/10/2005
WILX-TV
1978
4/15/2005
WNDU-TV
1979
2/10/2005
WOWT
1975
1/30/2005
WRDW-TV
1979
2/10/2005
1/6/2006
WSAZ
1978
1/29/2005
2/10/2005
WVLT-TV
1997
12/27/2004
5/17/2005
11/23/2005
6/9/2005
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has legal rights.
Complainant contends that it is a large communications group owning and operating broadcast television stations in 30 markets in the United States of America. Complainant has developed extensive trademark rights in all of its call signs through continuous and exclusive use over many decades by Complainant itself or a predecessor-in-interest in connection with television and entertainment services and on the Internet. Complainant used all of its trademarks prior to Respondent’s registration of any of the domain names at issue in this case.
Complainant owns U.S. federal trademark registrations for WOWT, KBTX-TV, KKTV, WBKO, WEAU-TV, WIBW-TV, and WRDW-TV. Complainant contends that these registrations constitute prima facie evidence of Complainant’s ownership of, and the validity of, the trademark. Complainant also owns federal trademark applications for all but three of its other call signs (KKCO, WILX, and WNDU).
Complainant contends that registration is not necessary to establish its legal rights in its trademarks. Common law trademark rights are appropriate for protection under the Policy where the complainant can establish that it has done business using the name in question in a sufficient manner to cause a secondary meaning identifiable to complainant’s goods or services. Complainant contends that it has in fact developed significant common law rights in its trademarks through continuous and extensive use of the marks in a trademark sense on its television broadcasts, in written materials, and on the Internet.
Complainant further contends that its common law rights are strengthened by the fact that the FCC assigns call signs in connection with television broadcast services and that the call signs uniquely identify the station to which they are assigned. The public thus identifies the call signs only with a particular television station and the entertainment services it provides, leading to the development of significant goodwill in the trademarks. Complainant’s marks are not dictionary words or common phrases. They�are distinctive call signs assigned uniquely to a particular television station.
Complainant contends that it had well-established rights to its trademarks prior to Respondent’s registration of any of the domain names at issue in this case.
Complainant contends that its quality services have been recognized by customers, as evidenced by high rankings in local news and/or overall viewing audience delivery for each station in the station’s market area.
Complainant’s stations all market and promote themselves and their services on the Internet. Complainant has registered domain names corresponding to each of its trademarks.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. Respondent’s domain names fully incorporate Complainant’s trademarks with the addition of terms that describe Complainant’s television, news, sports, and weather services, or, in several instances the station’s channel number. The addition of such generic or descriptive terms do not negate, and actually increase, the confusing similarity between the trademarks and the domain names.
Respondent’s domain names link to commercial websites which provide links to other websites selling items and services that in many instances compete with Complainant, thus increasing the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the domain names.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the domain names. Complainant contends that Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant and is not authorized by Complainant to use any of Complainant’s marks. Respondent is not and never has been known by any of the domain names at issue.
Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent is using the domain names only to divert Internet traffic to various commercial and gambling websites, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to the Policy. Respondent presumably receives pay-per-click referral fees from its sites and profits from the practice. Even if Respondent does not receive compensation, for diverting website visitors to other sites, the opportunistic practice tarnishes the goodwill and reputation of Complainant’s trademarks and is unfair.
Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and has used the domain names in bad faith.
Complainant contends that Respondent has previously been the subject of numerous adverse claims under the Policy and has exhibited a pattern of registering confusingly similar domain names in an effort to prevent others from reflecting their established marks in domain names.
Complainant contends that Respondent has in the past disregarded the Policy and acted in bad faith by attempting to evade the Policy, transfer a domain name to another holder during a pending proceeding and conceal its identity.
Complainant also contends that Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks. Respondent’s use of the domain names tarnishes Complainant’s trademarks by attempting to create a perceived connection between Complainant’s services and Respondent’s commercial websites and links and then attempting to profit from this illegitimate relationship.
Complainant further contends that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its trademarks, which supports a finding of bad faith. Bad faith may be found when the respondent knew or should have known of the complainant’s registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the domain name. Respondent’s use of the trademarks and terms relating to Complainant’s services is evidence that Respondent knew of Complainant’s trademarks prior to registration.
Complainant indicates that Respondent has been the respondent in at least 20 Policy complaints and must be aware of the importance of trademarks. Respondent did not respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letters.
The fact that Complainant’s trademarks are licensed exclusively to Complainant by the Federal Communications Commission makes it difficult to perceive any legitimate use of the marks by Respondent. Respondent’s links to gambling websites is relevant to the determination of bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Because Respondent did not respond to the Complaint, the Panel considers whether Respondent has been given adequate notice of the proceeding. The evidence indicates that the Center sent the Complaint in electronic form to the e-mail addresses required under paragraph�2(a)(ii) of the Rules and in hard copy by courier service to the address provided in Respondent’s registration information. The Panel concludes that the Center discharged its responsibility under the Rules to notify Respondent of the Complaint and the administrative proceeding.
Where respondent does not respond to the complaint, the panel must decide the dispute based upon the complaint. Rules, paragraphs�5(e) and 14(a). The panel is to decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted, in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any principles of law the panel deems applicable. Rules, paragraph�15(a). Under paragraph�14(b) of the Rules, Respondent’s failure to answer entitles the panel to “draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”.
Under paragraph�4(a) of the Policy, Complainant must prove each of the following three elements of its case in order to obtain the requested relief:
(i) Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) Respondent’s Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel considers each element in order.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant first must establish that it has rights in the claimed trademarks. There are 18 distinct marks involved in this case. Complainant has obtained USPTO registration of seven of these marks on the Principal Register of the United States, including WOWT, KBTX-TV, KKTV, WBKO, WEAU-TV, WIBW-TV, and WRDW-TV. Trademark registration is prima facie evidence of Complainant’s ownership of the mark and the validity of the mark and creates a rebuttable presumption that the trademarks are inherently distinctive. EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2000-0047.
Eleven of Complainant’s trademarks are not presently registered by the USPTO. However, the Policy does not require government registration of a trademark. The continuous and substantial use of a mark in commerce to identify one’s goods or services can establish legal rights to exclusive use of the trademark, and such common law rights have been found sufficient to establish legal rights under Paragraph�4(a)(1) of the Policy. River Valley Credit Union, Inc. v. Manila Industries, Inc., NAF Case No.�FA�772866 (2006); Hallelujah Acres, Inc. v. Manila Industries, Inc., NAF Case No.�FA�805029 (2006) (common law rights based on continuous and substantial use); Winterson v. Hogarth, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0235; SeekAmerica Networks, Inc. v. Masood, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0131; Cox Holdings, Inc. v. Private, WIPO Case No.�D2001-1446 (common law trademark rights in television station call letters); Lin Television Corporation v. Home in USA, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0257 (common law trademark rights established with respect to television call letters used as trademark).
The Panel finds that Complainant has submitted evidence sufficient to establish that it has common law rights in each of its trademarks claimed in this case. Complainant’s case is supported substantially by the fact that in the United States of America, a government agency, the FCC, assigns exclusive call letter marks to each television station. No other television station is entitled to use the same call letters. The mark thus distinctively identifies one broadcast television station.
In addition, Complainant submits substantial evidence that it, or its predecessors in interest, have used the claimed marks continually over a number of years to identify the stations. With respect to 17 of the 18 call sign marks, there is creditable evidence to establish first use in commerce as early as 1952 and not later than 1997. See Lin Television Corporation v. Home in USA, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0257. The call signs are displayed on station broadcasts, in written promotional materials, and on the Internet. Each of the stations appears from the evidence to have strong ratings in its market area. See Cox Holdings, Inc. v. Private, WIPO Case No.�D2001-1446.
With the coming of the age of the Internet, beginning in 1995 and running into 2006, but with the great majority (14) in the period 1995-1999, 15 of the 18 stations adopted and registered domain names using their call sign marks.
Arguably, Complainant’s weakest case for establishing common law rights is with respect to its WCAV mark, for which it claims first use in May 2004. This amount of time might be considered too short to establish secondary meaning or distinctiveness, and therefore common law rights, with respect to some trademarks, however, the nature of television call signs, assigned uniquely by a federal government agency to a particular television station, establishes the mark legally as an exclusive, inherently distinctive identification to the public of a particular television station and its services in a manner much more definitive than mere continuous usage. See Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebRg., WIPO Case No.�D2006-0964. The Panel considers this, supported here by three years of continuous use, sufficient to establish the station’s legal rights in the mark.
Finally, the Panel notes that Respondent has not come forward to challenge Complainant’s rights in any of the trademarks at issue, from which we are entitled to infer that Respondent has no basis to do so.
The Panel thus concludes that Complainant has established that it possesses legal rights in each of the television call sign trademarks it claims and on which this case is based.
Turning to the issue of whether Respondent’s 32 domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel finds that two of the domain names, and , are essentially identical to two of Complainant’s registered trademarks, but for the top level domain “.com”, which is irrelevant to the determination of identity or confusing similarity and may be disregarded. Grundfos A/S v. Manila Industries, Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2006-1295; Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Manila Industries, Inc., NAF Case No.�FA444468 (2005).
Each of Respondent’s 30 other domain names incorporates one of Complainant’s four-letter call signs in its entirety. “The intentional registration of a domain name knowing that the second level domain is another company’s valuable trademark weighs in favor of likelihood of confusion”. Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1059 (9th Cir. 1999); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Henry Chan, WIPO Case No.�D2004-0056. There is a strong inference that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s call sign marks in the 32 domain names was in fact intentional. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No.�D2000-0003.
In 23 of the domain names, Respondent adds generic or descriptive terms such as “tv”, “news”, “weather”, or “sports” to the call sign mark. Such terms merely describe the television services offered and provided by Complainant’s television station. “Generally, a user of a mark may not avoid likely confusion by appropriating another’s entire mark and adding descriptive or non-distinctive matter to it.” 3�J.�Thomas�McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition � 23:50 (4th�ed. 2005). See General Electric Company v. CPIC NET and Hussain Syed, WIPO Case No.�D2001-0087; Eastman Chemical Co. v. Manila Industries, Inc., NAF Case No.�FA 450806 (2005); Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Manila Industries., Inc., NAF Case No.�FA 444468 (2005). The principle that likelihood of confusing similarity cannot be avoided by the addition of descriptive content has been found to include the addition of entire words to a famous trademark. See The Coca-Cola Company v. Gamlebyen Invest AS, WIPO�Case No.�D2000-1677 (“Coca Cola” and “cocacoladrinks” held confusingly similar); America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,WIPO Case No.�D2001-0004, citing Sporty’s Farm LLC. v. Sportsman’s Market. Inc., 202 F. 3d 489, 497-98 (2d.�Cir.�2000); Yahoo! Inc. v. CPIC NET and Syed Hussain, WIPO Case No.�D2001-0195; America Online, Inc., v. Yeteck Communication, Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2001-0055. In the case of television stations, the addition of terms such as “news”, “sports”, and “weather”, have been held actually to increase confusion when there is a strong commercial link between the claimant’s trademark and such additional terms. See Media West-GSI, Inc. v. Cupcake City, WIPO Case No.�D2001-0235 (addition of “sports” and “weather” to name of newspaper caused confusion); Capital Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. Private, WIPO Case No.�D2000-1609 (addition of “weather” heightened confusion with television call letter mark).
Fifteen of Respondent’s domain names include a number or the word “channel” and a number. In each instance, the evidence shows that the number used in the domain name corresponds to Complainant’s television station’s assigned broadcast channel number. The channel numbers define where the consumer can locate the station on their television set and are used extensively in promoting the station’s services.
Two of Respondent’s domain names include the word “volunteer” in conjunction with the call sign mark WVLT. The WVLT station is located in Knoxville, Tennessee where the University of Tennessee is located. The University’s nickname or mascot for its athletic teams is “Volunteers”, and the record shows that the WVLT station promotes itself extensively as “Volunteer TV.”
Respondent’s use of channel numbers corresponding with a station’s call letters and, in the case of WVLT, the word “volunteer”, a word commonly used by Complainant to identify and promote its television station, tend to reinforce the impression that the domain name is in fact associated with a particular television station and thus increase, rather than lessen or negate, the confusing similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s call sign trademark. See Emmis Television Broadcasting, L.P. d/b/a KHON-TV v. Henry Chan, WIPO Case No.�D2004-0366 (addition of television station’s numerical channel identifier to station’s distinctive trademark caused confusion).
An Internet user searching for Complainant’s television stations or services would likely be confused by Respondent’s domain names to think that he/she was being directed to one of Complainant’s websites where he/she could obtain information about Complainant’s services, which is completely untrue. Each of Respondent’s domain names suggests a sponsorship of or affiliation with one of Complainant’s companies which does not in fact exist.
The Panel concludes that each of Respondent’s 32 domain names at issue here is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant possesses legal rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant must establish that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. See paragraph�4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Once a complainant has made a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence demonstrating its rights and legitimate interests. Respondent, in default here, does nothing to assume its burden in this regard.
There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by any of the domain names, that it was authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s trademarks in the domain names or that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of any one or more of the domain names. See paragraphs�4(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
The evidence of record is sufficient for the Panel to infer that Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See paragraph�4(c)(i) of the Policy. The Panel considers that Respondent in all likelihood knew of Complainant’s trademarks before registering the domain names and consciously chose to use those marks in launching its various websites. See�Pfizer Inc. v. NA, WIPO Case No.�D2005-0072. The unlawful use of another’s trademark cannot be considered bona fide, i.e. in good faith, with respect to an offering of goods or services. AltaVista Company v. Mr. James A. Maggs, NAF Case No.�FA0095545.
Respondent, moreover, is using its confusingly similar domain names to divert Internet traffic to its websites, unrelated to the Complainant, where the user is invited to link to various commercial and gambling websites. Some of the commercial sites compete with Complainant. Respondent’s presumptive purpose is its own commercial gain through generation of click-through referral fees. See Colonial Fence MFG, Inc. dba AVO Cedar Fences v. Manila Industries, Inc., NAF Case No.�FA 791503 (2006). This use of its domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Paragraph�4(c)(i) of the Policy. Cap Gemini v. Manila Industries, Inc./”Cap Gemini”, WIPO Case No.�D2006-0027; Karl’s Sales and Services Company, LLC v. LaPorte Holdings, Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2004-0929.
Based on the evidence, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Finally, Complainant must show that Respondent both registered and is using the domain names in bad faith. See paragraph�4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
There is substantial authority that registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous trademark by any entity that has no relationship to that mark is itself sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. Sporty’s Farm LLC v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 498 (2d Cir. 2000); Pfizer Inc. v. NA, WIPO Case No.�D2005-0072; AT&T Corp. v. John Zuccarini d/b/a Music Wave and RaveClub Berlin, WIPO Case No.�D2002-0440; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan, WIPO Case No.�D2001-0004; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fond�e en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No.�D2000-0163 (use of a name connected with such a well-known product by someone with no connection with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith). Based upon the long periods of Complainant’s trademark use, the fact that the trademarks are not common words, Respondent’s registration of 32 domain names involving 18 distinct trademarks of the Complainant, the use in the domain names of additional terms clearly related to television services and even to specific television stations owned by Complainant, and the use of the domain names to link to services that compete with Complainant, there is a reasonable, if not compelling, inference that Respondent knew of each of Complainant’s trademarks when it used them in registering the domain names at issue here. See KPMG International v. Manila Industries, Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2006-0597.
Under paragraph�4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith exists where respondent is using a domain name intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of respondent’s website. Once again, there is a reasonable inference that this is what Respondent is doing here. Respondent clearly is using confusingly similar domain names to attract users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the affiliation between Complainant’s television stations and Respondent’s websites. Once again, there is a reasonable inference that Respondent’s purpose in all of this activity is its own commercial gain, probably to generate click-through fees. See Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Manila Industries, Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2006-0714; Pancil LLC v. Manila Industries, Inc.; WIPO Case No.�D2006-0970; Ideal Products, LLC v. Manila Industries, Inc., NAF Case No.�FA 819490 (2006) (Respondent said to admit website operated for commercial gain).
The Panel finds it unnecessary to reach the several other issues Complainant raises with respect to bad faith. The Panel does note that the record here supports that Respondent has been named as respondent in at least 20 other cases under the Policy and has lost all but one of these, thus implying a considerable number of prior determinations of bad faith registration and use of domain names. Such a record weighs against Respondent when it comes to determination of the inferences to be drawn concerning Respondent’s knowledge of others’ trademark rights and its intent with respect to use of others’ marks in the domain names that it registers.
The Panel thus concludes that Respondent both registered and is using each of the domain names at issue in bad faith and that Complainant therefore has established the third and final element of its case.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs�4(i) of the Policy and 15�of the Rules, the Panel orders that each of the following 32 domain names, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , be transferred to the Complainant.
John R. Keys, Jr.
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 10, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy