WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Crosby Group, Inc. v. Xie Yiwei, Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd.
Case No. D2008-0692
1. The Parties
Complainant is The Crosby Group, Inc., Tulsa, United States of America, represented by Perman & Green, LLP, United States of America.
Respondent is Xie Yiwei, Quanzhou, China and Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd,, Tianjing, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with HiChina Web Solutions Limited.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 2, 2008. On May 5, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to HiChina Web Solutions Limited a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On May 7, 2008, HiChina Web Solutions Limited transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent Xie Yiwei is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient on the grounds of language of proceedings, Complainant filed a request for Proceedings in English Language on May 13, 2008. 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 Respondents of the Complaint in Chinese and English, and the proceedings commenced on May 14, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 3, 2008. Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondents’ default on June 4, 2008.
The Center appointed Susanna H.S. Leong, Erica Aoki and Linda Chang as panelists in this matter on June 30, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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 is world renowned engineering and manufacturing company and is the owner of the trade mark CROSBY which is registered in over thirty-five countries worldwide including China (Registration No. 1391295, dated April 28, 2000), United States of America (Registration No. 1,100,565, dated August 29, 1978) and the United Kingdom (Registration No. 527738, dated December 9, 1981). All registrations are prior to August 30, 2007 when the disputed domain name was registered.
The CROSBY trade mark is associated with rigging components including wire rope clips and thimbles, swage, spelter and wedge sockets, rod ends, lifting eyes, eye nuts and pad eyes, eye bolts and ring bolts, load handling chain, chain slings, replacement links, connecting links, clevis links, swivels, shackles, rings, jaws and hooks.
The disputed domain name was first registered on August 30, 2007.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its famous trade mark CROSBY in which Complainant has rights and continues to have such rights in several jurisdictions including China.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates Complainant’s famous trade mark, introducing modification of Complainants’ trade mark with the name of a country (i.e. China) that descriptive as to the geographical location or country designation and merely modifies the famous CROSBY trade mark, thereby rendering the domain name confusingly similar. Complainant cites The Gap, Inc. v. YongHoon Lee, SofTech,WIPO Case No. D2007-0386 and DHL Operations B.V. v. ZLEX,WIPO Case No. D2007-1612 in support of its contention.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant contends that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the following reasons:
(a) Respondents are not using the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
(b) Complainant has no affiliation with Respondents whatsoever and has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondents to use any of its trade marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating any of those marks. See, Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0110, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin,WIPO Case No. D2002-0946.
(c) Respondents are not a reseller of Complainant’s products and are not making a bona fide offering of goods and services. This is evident by the fact that the website associated with the domain name is used to sell not only the trade marked goods of Complainant but also other products from Kito and Yoke, which are products of Complainant’s direct competitors i.e. Kito Canada Inc. and Yoke Industrial Corp. respectively.
(d) Furthermore, the second Respondent misrepresents itself as being an authorized representative of Complainant when there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between Complainant and Respondents nor anyone operating the website. Respondents are not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by the explicit use of the CROSBY trade mark in the disputed domain name and on the website.
(e) The use of Complainant’s name and logo on the website appears to be solely for the purpose of commercial gain by misleadingly diverting consumers from Complainant’s website “” to goods of Complainant’s direct competitors.
(f) Respondents do not have any authorization for the use of Complainant’s trade marks in either the disputed domain name or on the underlying website.
(g) The content of the website “www.” associated with the disputed domain name is clearly directed to Complainant’s products, which in combination with the use of the CROSBY trade mark in the disputed domain name and throughout the website (as well as in a copyright notice on the website) would lead one to believe the website is associated with Complainant. See Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,WIPO Case No. 2001-0110 and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
(h) The products sold by Respondents are not being supplied to Respondents by Complainant and hence are being provided by an unknown source. The products sold by Respondents may be of a lesser quality compared to the trade marked CROSBY products which they were represented as being. This misrepresentation will tarnish Complainant’s reputation within the industry. Alternatively, Respondents may be selling CROSBY products which Complainant intended for salvage and this would also tarnish Complainant’s reputation as such products are supposed to be destroyed once designated as salvage.
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondents in bad faith on the following grounds:
(a) The registration of the disputed domain name was made without the consent of Complainant and was obtained by the first Respondent, Xie Yiwei, without the permission of Complainant. Use of the CROSBY trade mark in the disputed domain name as well as on the associated website infringes the CROSBY trade mark and such use is impermissible.
(b) The CROSBY trade mark is registered worldwide and dates back as far as 1931. Complainant asserts that its CROSBY trade mark is a worldwide famous trade mark. Thus, Complainant contends that when the first Respondent, Xie Yiwei, registered the disputed domain name with HiChina Web Solutions, LTD., Respondent had full knowledge of Complainant’s famous CROSBY trade mark, especially in view of the fact that the CROSBY trade mark was registered in China in 2002 and used throughout the world well before the Chinese registration date. Thus, Complainant asserts that Respondents have registered the disputed domain name with the intent of profiting from the use of Complainant’s trade mark.
(c) Complainant asserts that further evidence of bad faith registration by the first Respondent, Xie Yiwei, can be found in the fact that the registration of the disputed domain name was made under an invalid address. The first Respondent’s address is merely listed as “fujian quanzhou” which appears to be a mere recitation of the city “Quanzhou” and province “Fujian”.
(d) The contact details of the registrant of the disputed domain name and the entity associated or appears to be operating the website upon which the disputed domain name devolves are not the same. This raises questions on the relationships between the first Respondent, Xie Yiwei and the second Respondent, Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd. The first Respondent may be a reseller of the disputed domain name to the second Respondent or the first Respondent may be doing business under the name of second Respondent. Complainant asserts that in the former case, the first Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the second Respondent, who appears to be a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the first Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. In the latter case, Complainant asserts that Respondents’ intent was to draw business away from Complainant.
(e) The disputed domain name is associated with a website, which explicitly uses the CROSBY trade mark and Complainant’s name as well as presents photographs of Complainant’s products. The website appears to provide for the unauthorized sale of Complainant’s rigging products as well as the sale of products from Complainant’s direct competitors Kito and Yoke. Complainant has no affiliation with Respondents and has not provided the Respondents with authority to act as Complainant’s representative. The website further provides as a background, images of Complainant’s products and one of the web pages even includes the cover of Complainant’s 2006 product catalog. Complainant is not in any way responsible for the content appearing on the website nor is Complainant connected in any way with the website or anyone operating it, and the contents of the website are posted without Complainant’s permission.
(f) Complainant contends that Respondents are clearly falsely presenting themselves, through the use of the disputed domain name and the associated website, as being an authorized representative of Complainant and Complainant’s products. On the website, Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd. is described as being a distribution company that specially handles all imported brands of hoisting and suspension rigging tools and equipment where the “agency brand is the world famous brand, CROSBY…”. It is further noted that name “Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd.” and the phrase “agency brand” are both highlighted and appears to signify a connection between the CROSBY brand and Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd. that would lead one to believe that the Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd. is a representative of Complainant. However, Complainant is not associated in any way with Respondents.
(g) In order to provide an appearance of legitimacy to their assertion that they are an authorized representative of Complainant, Respondents provide business information on the website in the English language describing Complainant’s corporate history, business strategy and business model. Complainant’s 2006 product catalog is presented along with this information. This attempt at providing, what can only be considered, a false appearance of legitimacy, further proves Respondents’ intent to profit from the unauthorized use of Complainant’s trade mark in the disputed domain name.
(h) The purported business information provided by Respondents on the website appears to have been taken directly from the website (“”, registered to Crosby Limited) for the company “Crosby Capital Partners Inc.”, which is a merchant banking and asset management group and is totally unrelated to Complainant and Complainant’s field of business. The use of the business information on Respondents’ website appears to be an unauthorized use to lead one to believe that Respondents are representatives of Complainant. Complainant has contacted Crosby Capital Partners Inc. to determine the relationship between Crosby Capital Partners Inc. and Respondents but have not received a response at the time of filing this Complaint.
(i) Complainant contends that Respondents were at the time of the disputed domain name registration and are currently intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondents’ website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondents’ website and the products contained therein. Where Respondents have used a domain name that is confusingly similar to a Complainant’s trade mark and sells Complainant’s products on a website associated with the confusingly similar domain name, a prima facie case of bad faith is shown. Respondents are baiting Internet users through the use of Complainant’s trade mark in the domain name to Respondents’ website and then switching them to the goods of Complainant’s direct competitors. See, Dominique Baudoux v. SA Cybertech Corporation,WIPO Case No. D2007-1267; Tacitica International, Inc. v. YouCanS, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002-0018; and Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin,WIPO Case No. D2002-0946.
B. Respondents
Respondents did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Respondent Identity
According to Registrar’s WhoIs database and the Registrar’s confirmation to the Center, the registrant of record is Xie Yiwei.
The Panel notes that the website with the disputed domain name is operated by or operated on behalf of Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd.
The relationship between Xie Yiwei and Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd. is not entirely clear. Complainant has submitted that they may be one and the same entity or two different entities, one having registered the domain name for use of the other. Accordingly, Complainant has named both Xie Yiwei and Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd. as Respondents in the present proceeding.
The Panel notes that the Complaint has been notified to both entities and that there has been no response from either Xie Yiwei or Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd. to Complainant’s assertions and evidence.
The Panel finds, for the purposes of these proceedings, that both Xie Yiwei and Tianjin Crosby Motor Trade Co., Ltd. are to be considered Respondents.
6.2 Language of the Proceeding
The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. From the evidence presented in the Case File, no agreement appears to have been entered into between Complainant and Respondents to the effect that the proceedings should be in English.
Complainant has submitted a request that English should be the language of the present proceeding on the following grounds:
1. The website operated in connection with the domain name includes webpages where the content is primarily in English. The disputed domain name is in English. Therefore, it is apparent that Respondents have knowledge of the English language and are undoubtedly able to respond to documents presented to them in English.
2. After the Complaint was filed, Complainant has repeatedly attempted to contact Respondents at the addresses listed in the relevant Registrar’s database as well as the addresses listed on the website operated in connection with the disputed domain name but have not received a response from Respondents.
3. Complainant has also sent a letter on May 8, 2008 to each of Respondents by email and by courier to the addresses on record regarding the request for the present proceeding to be conducted in English but Complainant has not received any response from Respondents. Respondents’ silence to the repeated communications from Complainant can only be interpreted as Respondents’ tacit agreement to Complainant’s request for the proceedings to be conducted in English.
4. Complainant is a United States based corporation and conducts its business primarily in English. If the proceedings are to take place in Chinese, Complainant would have to translate all of the documents and this would result in substantial costs to Complainant. Complainant should not be prejudiced by increased costs and loss of time of reply time for responding to communications in the proceedings through a requirement that the present proceedings be held in Chinese when Respondents are completely capable of communicating in English.
5. The Registrar HiChina Web Solutions, Ltd. has submitted to proceedings in English and all communications between Complainant and Registrant have also been conducted in English.
(i) The Panel’s discretion under the Policy
Paragraph 11 of the Rules provides:
“Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”
Thus, parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of an agreement, the language of the registration agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel’s discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.
(ii) The Circumstances of this Case
One important consideration is the issue of fairness to both parties in their abilities to prepare the necessary documents for this proceeding and also to respond adequately to these documents when they are served upon the parties.
In particular, the Panel notes that the material facts of this proceeding are generated in the English language. On record, Respondents appear to be Chinese and are thus presumably not native English speakers, but the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that Respondents are conversant and proficient in the English language.
In particular, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is in English – and parts of the website associated with the disputed domain name are in English.
The Panel is satisfied that Complainant has exhausted all means to contact Respondents and to request for the present proceedings to be conducted in English. However, Respondents did not respond to the communications.
The Panel also notes that the Center has notified Respondents of the proceedings in both Chinese and English. Respondents had a choice to respond to the Complaint in either Chinese or English as the Panel who has been appointed by the Center is conversant in both languages. However, Respondents have chosen not to respond to Complainant’s allegations. Considering these circumstances, the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is fair to both parties and is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for this case.
After considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding shall be English and the decision will be rendered in English.
6.3 Substantive Elements of the Policy
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding and obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, Complainant must establish that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
1. the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
2. Respondents have 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.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy clearly states that the burden of proof lies with Complainant to establish that all these three elements are satisfied in this proceeding.
Furthermore, pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under the Rules of any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom, as it deems appropriate.
On the basis of the evidence introduced by Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy (paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has produced substantial evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trade mark rights in the CROSBY mark in over 35 countries worldwide including China.
In assessing the degree of similarity between Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name, the Panel shall have regard to the degree of visual, aural or conceptual similarity between them and where appropriate, evaluate the importance to be attached to these different elements. The issue of degree of similarity between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name is to be considered from the perspective of the average consumer of the goods or services concerned and in this case, the average consumer is the Internet user seeking to purchase or download information about Complainant’s products.
The disputed domain name comprises (a) an exact reproduction of Complainant’s trade mark CROSBY, (b) the English words “china” in one word before the word “crosby” which is connected by a hyphen, and (c) the top level domain suffix “.com”. Complainant’s mark has been reproduced in its entirety in the disputed domain name. The Panel accepts Complainant’s contention that the English word “china” is non-distinctive and they do not provide additional specification or sufficient distinction from Complainant or its trade mark CROSBY. In fact, the Panel finds that the addition of the word “china” serves to emphasize the geographical location of Complainant’s business which increases the level of confusion of Internet users as Internet users may mistake Respondents’ website as Complainant’s official website devoted to its customers in China.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
The Panel finds for Complainant on the first part of the test.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The burden of proof on this element lies with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP Panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests to a disputed domain name, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut complainant’s contentions.
According to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie showing and notes that Respondents have not provided any evidence of the circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances giving rise to a right to or legitimate interest in the domain name.
Based on the following reasons the Panel finds that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
1. Respondents have not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the domain name or reasons to justify the choice of the word “china-crosby” in their business operations;
2. There was no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondents to use its trade mark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the CROSBY trade mark;
3. There is no indication that Respondents are commonly known by the disputed domain name and/or are using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, offering Complainant’s products and products of Complainant’s direct competitors at the website with the disputed domain name cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services;
4. Complainant and its trade mark CROSBY enjoy a worldwide reputation with regard to its engineering and manufacturing business. It is a famous mark within the relevant sector of public who is in the same or similar line of business. Consequently, in the absence of contrary evidence from Respondents, the CROSBY trade mark is not one that traders could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant.
The Panel finds for Complainant on the second part of the test.
B. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product.
The Panel concludes that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case and upon the evidence of these circumstances and other relevant circumstances, it is adequate to conclude that Respondents have registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
First, the Panel finds that Complainant enjoys a widespread reputation in its CROSBY trade mark with regard to its engineering and manufacturing business. In this day and age of the Internet and advancement in information technology, the reputation of brands and trade marks transcend national borders.
Therefore, the Panel finds that it is not conceivable that Respondents would not have had actual notice of Complainant’s trade mark rights at the time of the registration of the domain name. Consequently, in the absence of contrary evidence from Respondents, the Panel finds that the CROSBY trade mark is not one that traders could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant.
Thus, it would have been pertinent for Respondents to provide an explanation of their choice in the disputed domain name. However, Respondents have chosen not to submit a substantive response in this matter even though they were given notice of these proceedings in English and in Chinese and this leads the Panel to conclude that the disputed domain name was registered by Respondents in bad faith with the intent to create an impression of an association with Complainant and its products and services. The Panel’s conclusion that Respondents ought to have knowledge of Complainant’s CROSBY mark at the time of registration is further buttressed by the fact that in this day and age of the Internet and with businesses in general having an Internet presence, anyone who conducts a simple search exercise over the Internet can come to the conclusion that the trade mark CROSBY belongs to Complainant. In this Panel’s view, it is the duty of Respondents to undertake due diligence to ensure that the selection or choice of domain names does not infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties.
Second, Complainant has also adduced evidence to prove that by using a confusingly similar domain name, Respondents have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondents’ website offering Complainant’s products and services in the engineering and manufacturing business. Given the widespread reputation of Complainant’s CROSBY trade mark in the relevant sector of the public who is engaged in the engineering and manufacturing business, the compelling conclusion is that Respondents, by choosing to register and use a domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s widely known and distinctive trade marks, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trade mark in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet traffic destined for Complainant. Potential partners and end users are led to believe that the website “www.” is either Complainant’s site specially designated for its business in China or the site of official authorized partners of Complainant, which it is not. Consequently, Respondents have through the use of a confusingly similar domain name created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s CROSBY trade mark and this constitutes a misrepresentation to the public that Respondents’ website is in one way or the other associated or connected with Complainant’s. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondents, the choice of the disputed domain name and the conduct of Respondents as far as the website on to which the domain name resolves are indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel finds for Complainant on the third part of the test.
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 the domain name, be cancelled.
Susanna H.S. Leong
Presiding Panelist
Erica Aoki
Panelist
Linda Chang
Panelist
Dated: July 18, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy