The Complainant is bet365 Group Limited of Staffordshire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland (“United Kingdom”), represented by SJ Berwin LLP, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, Inc. of Scottsdale, United States of America / eli dabosh of London, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 28, 2011. On July 28, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 2, 2011, GoD, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that eli dabosh is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 5, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 25, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 26, 2011.
The Center appointed Ian Blackshaw as the sole panelist in this matter on September 5, 2011. 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
The Complainant is a large multi-national corporate group whose key business lies in the online gambling industry, but also encompasses various related forms of gambling (such as telephone and mobile phone betting).
The Complainant has a significant reputation and presence around the world with well over 5 million members in 200 countries. The Complainant provides several online gambling and betting services, such as sports betting (including football, horse racing, tennis, cricket and basketball), financials, poker, casino, games, and bingo, all in 17 languages.
The Complainant is the proprietor of a number of registered trademarks for BET365, BET365 stylized, and other BET365 formative marks in the UK and European Community (“BET365 Registered Trademarks"). Copies of the registration certificates for the BET365 Registered Trademarks are set out at Annex 5 and full details of the goods and services covered by each of the registrations are set out at Annex 6.
By way of example only, the Complainant’s UK trademark registration no. 2456453 for BET365 covers the following goods and services:
Class 9
Computer software; computer software for betting, gaming and gambling services and database management; electronic publications; computer games; electronic interactive computer games; computer software and computer programs for distribution to, and for use by, users of a betting and gaming services; computer games programs downloaded via the internet (software); computer games software; computer programs for playing games; computer software downloaded from the internet; compact discs and DVD's; gaming apparatus adapted for use with television receivers; computer software for use in downloading, transmitting, receiving, editing, extracting, encoding, decoding, playing, storing and organising data including audio and video data.
Class 28
Games and playthings; gaming apparatus (other than adapted for use with television receivers); games involving gambling.
Class 35
Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions; on-line data processing services.
Class 36
Financial services; financial services relating to betting, gaming, gambling, lotteries or book making; provision of financial information relating to betting, gaming, gambling, lotteries or book making services; information, advice and assistance relating to the aforementioned services.
Class 38
Providing access to multiple user network systems allowing access to gaming and betting information and services over the Internet, other global networks or via telephony (including mobile telephones); telecommunications services; transmission of radio or television programs; data streaming services; streaming of live television and radio; online video service, offering live streaming of cultural, entertainment and sports events; providing internet chat room services; provision of on-line forums; transmission and communication services; transmission of sound and/or pictures; computer aided transmission of messages and images; electronic mail services; telecommunication services relating to the Internet or via telephony including mobile telephones; telecommunication of information (including web pages); provision of telecommunications links to computer databases and websites on the Internet or via telephony including mobile telephones; telecommunications information; factual information services relating to telecommunications.
Class 41
Provision of betting, gambling and gaming services through physical and electronic sites and telephonic centres; betting, lottery or book making services; credit card betting, gaming, gambling, lottery or book making services; organising and conducting lotteries; electronic betting, gaming, gambling and lottery services provided by means of the Internet, or via a global computer network, or on-line from a computer network database, or via telephony including mobile telephones, or via a television channel; interactive poker, bingo and skills games and gaming including single and multi-player gaming formats; presentation and production of poker and bingo competitions, tournaments, games and gaming; entertainment, sporting and cultural activities; organisation and conducting competitions; remote gaming services provided through telecommunication links; gambling information provided on-line from a computer database or via the Internet; gaming services for entertainment purposes; electronic games services provided by means of the Internet; organisation of games; game services provided on-line; services for the operation of computerised bingo and skills games; information relating to gaming provided on-line from a computer database or the Internet; information and advisory services relating to the aforesaid services; factual information services relating to sport.
Class 42
Computer advisory, consultancy and design services, leasing, rental and hire of computer software, computer programming.
The Complainant is also the proprietor of a number of pending trademark applications in other jurisdictions, details of which have been provided to the Panel.
The Complainant also has unregistered rights in its BET365 Unregistered Trademarks and its pending trademark applications (“BET365 Unregistered Trademarks”).
The mark BET365 is the Complainant’s house mark and is also the first and dominant part of its company name, bet365 Group Limited. The mark BET365 has been used by the Complainant since 2001, well before December 13, 2003, the date on which the disputed domain name was registered.
The Complainant’s business operations include its corporate websites, several of which are listed here:
(registered on August 4, 1999)
/en
/en
Via these websites, which use the BET365 mark, customers can place bets, play games (including poker), read the results of live sporting events, and listen to live sports commentaries, among other things. Extracts from these websites have been provided to the Panel.
Furthermore, over GBP 24 billion in wagers have been placed through the Complainant since it commenced trading under the BET365 Mark in 2001. Again evidence of this has been provided to the Panel.
The Complainant has spent considerable sums on press and media advertising since 2001. The total marketing expenditure throughout the European Union from 2001 to 2011 has been provided to the Panel in a confidential table. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following assertions: i. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), Rules, paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1))
In accordance with the Rules, Paragraph 3(b)(ix)(1), the disputed domain name, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BET365 Registered Trademarks and BET365 Unregistered Trademarks. The dominant and distinctive element of the disputed domain name is “bet365”, and “poker” is merely descriptive of the game, poker. Such a descriptive reference has no determining influence on the overall impression of a sign, given its lack of distinguishing capacity. By way of example only, confusing similarity has been upheld between and “shopping24” (shopping 24 Gesellschaftfür multimediale Anwendungen mbH v. Christian RommeI,WIPO Case No. D2000-0508, and between and and AOL (America Online, Inc. v. East Coast Exotics,WIPO Case No. D2001-0661).
The disputed domain name clearly uses the Complainant’s “BET365” trademark in conjunction with the descriptive word “poker” to simply describe one of the games offered by the Complainant under the mark, BET365. The addition of the word “poker” is irrelevant and does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the disputed domain name, i.e. “bet365”, which would be identified with the Complainant (see in this regard, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Private Person, Yaroslav P Savchenko,WIPO Case No. D2010-0394, at Section 6A).
The overall impression created by the disputed domain name is that it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BET365 Registered Trademarks and BET365 Unregistered Trademarks.
Furthermore, the BET365 Trademarks are well known in Europe and have been used extensively since 2001. This increases the degree of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s BET365 Trademarks. ii. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name;
(Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2))
The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise directly or indirectly authorized the Respondent to use its BET365 Trademarks.
Printouts of the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name have been provided to the Panel. The website uses the term POKERBET365 as a tool to attract Internet users interested in the Complainant’s services and then redirects them to various third party websites selling and providing identical and/or highly similar betting and gaming services, including for example, (“”), William Hill Casino (“”) and Winner Online Casino (“/nI”). Extracts from these websites have been provided to the Panel.
The Complainant believes that the Respondent is likely to generate revenue by
(i) “pay-per-click” advertising of these third-par competitor websites; and/or
(ii) being an affiliate of the Complainant’s competitors listed above thereby receiving a percentage revenue based upon the net profits achieved from misdirected customers to the competitor websites.
Therefore, the Respondent is likely to commercially benefit from misled Complainant customers who mistakenly
believe that the Complainant controls, is connected to, or has endorsed the Respondent’s domain name, website and/or the advertised third-party websites.
It is clear that the Respondent’s disputed domain name and website take advantage of the reputation and goodwill developed in the Complainant’s BET365 Trademarks for the benefit of the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name tarnishes the Complainant’s brand and BET365 Trademarks.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
As per Motorola, Inc. v. NewGate Internet, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0079, the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark BET365 as the dominant and distinctive part of clearly does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services when the Respondent has no registered or common law intellectual property rights or other rights in the mark POKERBET365 and/or BET365, which forms its dominant element.
The only reason the Respondent registered, used and continues to use the disputed domain name is to attract customers who are not looking for the services offered by the Respondent, but are instead looking for the Complainant’s services associated with its BET365 Trademarks (those offered by the Complainant at “” for example).
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name creates customer confusion and dilution of the Complainant’s trademarks and such actions can hardly be considered to be bona fide.
Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name by redirecting Internet users interested in the Complainant’s goods and services to its own website for commercial gain generated by pay-per-click advertising of third-party websites and/or affiliate payments, does not fall within the parameters of legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. iii. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
(Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(iii), 4(b); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3))
The Complainant relies on the same facts and matters discussed above in respect of (a) the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s BET365 Trademarks; and (b) the Respondent’s absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, to demonstrate that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
In particular, the above facts and matters establish that the Respondent has in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, registered and used the disputed domain name intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s BET365 Registered and Unregistered Trademarks, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website.
The Respondent clearly knew about the Complainant’s business and BET365 Registered and Unregistered Trademarks when registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered in 2003, two years after the Complainant began using the mark and three years after the Complainant’s first UK trademark applications were filed. By the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s business was already well established.
The Respondent has posted an article about the disputed domain name on its website, which suggests to the reader that the Respondent is in fact the Complainant. The article (translated from the original Dutch) as follows:
“Bet365 [sic] is an all-inclusive gaming website where you can enjoy online casino games, poker games, sports betting, bingo, skill games and more! One of the most important aspects of playing on a site like Bet365 [sic) is that you only need to create an account of all your favorite gambling options genie ten. Bet365 [sic] Casino Bet3 65(sic) not only the famous name, but what stands behind that name, is a company of more than 800 employees who work on the needs of more than 2 million customers. They not only offer the highest degree of professional services, they also offer just the best software with the most options.”
A full extract of this article has been provided to the Panel.
This very strongly suggests a connection with the Complainant that does not exist.
The Respondent’s disputed domain name and website are designed to disrupt and harm the Complainant’s business by diverting potential customers away from the Complainant’s authentic website to third party competitor online gaming websites (see Section 5. A. ii above) to generate revenue for the Respondent through pay-per-click advertising and/or affiliate payments. This causes commercial detriment in terms of consumer confusion; lost sales and goodwill; and the loss of the Complainant’s general ability to communicate and transact with existing and potential customers.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent’s complete lack of intellectual property rights in the disputed domain name further demonstrates bad faith.
Where a domain name is so obviously connected to the Complainant’s good and services and the registrant is found to have no connection to those products or services, the registrant is guilty of “opportunistic bad faith.” See Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163.
The Complainant also submits that the fact that the Respondent has taken active steps to conceal his true identity by employing the privacy protection services of Domains by Proxy, to which it may have also supplied an incorrect contact address, is evidence of bad faith. (see The Saul Zaentz Company d/b/a Tolkein Enterprises v. Eurobox Ltd. / “The Saul Zaentz Company”,WIPO Case No. D2008-0156).
Finally, the Respondent failed to respond to the cease and desist letter sent to him successfully on behalf of the Complainant by e-mail on March 24, 2011. A copy of this correspondence has been provided to the Panel. The Complainant submits that this refusal to respond should be treated as evidence of bad faith following Ebay Inc. v. E and Tony Caranci ,WIPO Case No. 2000-1632. B. Respondent
The Respondent, having been duly notified of the Complaint and of these proceedings, did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions or take any part in these proceedings. 6. Discussion and Findings
To qualify for cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(ii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In accordance with 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.
In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, in the event that a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any of the time periods established by the Rules or the Panel, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the Complaint; and under 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 or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate.
In accordance with paragraph 10(d) of the Rules, the Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.
In previous UDRP cases in which respondents failed to file a response, the panels’ decisions were based upon the complainants’ assertions and evidence, as well as inferences drawn from the respondents’ failure to reply. See The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064; and also Köstritzer Schwarzbierbrauerei v. Macros Telekom Corp.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0936.
Nevertheless, a panel must not decide in the complainant’s favor solely based on the respondent’s default. See Cortefiel, S.A. v. Miguel García Quintas,WIPO Case No. D2000-0140. In this case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP cases that, where a disputed domain name incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525.
In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s well-known and well-established registered trademark BET365. This, in the view of the Panel, is bound to lead to confusion on the part of consumers and Internet users seeking information on the Complainant’s company and its services marketed under its well-known registered trademark BET365.
The addition to the disputed domain name of the word “poker”, being descriptive, does not provide any distinguishing feature for trademark purposes. Indeed, it only adds to the confusion as the Complainant is in the gambling industry. See Harrods Limited v. Simon Harkin Travel,WIPO Case No. D2004-0546 in which the panel held that:
“Although the [d]omain [n]ame consists of the word “harrods” and the word “travel,” it is well settled that a domain name suffix, such as the word “travel” in the present case, is merely descriptive and does not add any distinctiveness to the word “harrods,” which is the quintessential and distinctive part of the [d]omain [n]ame. See Harrods Limited v.Vineet Singh,WIPO Case No. D2001-1162, where the [p]anel held that ‘[…] any use of the name Harrods in conjunction with a description […] would suggest a false sense of origin […] for any associated goods or services’. See also Harrods Limited v. Brad Shaw, WIPO Case No. D2004-0411, where the [p]anel held that ‘The [d]omain [n]ame consists of the word HARRODS plus a hyphen and the generic term “poker”. The latter is not a distinguishing feature and does not lessen the likelihood of confusion with the trademark.”
Furthermore, the Complainant’s well-known trademark BET365 forms an essential part of the Complainant’s corporate name, under which the Complainant trades and this fact also adds to the confusion of and misleads punters.
The addition of a top level domain (gTLD) here, “.com”, to the disputed domain name does not constitute an element in the disputed domain name so as to avoid confusing similarity. See The Coca-Cola Company v. David Jurkiewicz,WIPO Case No. DME2010-0008; Telecom Personal, S.A., v. NAMEZERO.COM, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2001-0015; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0451; and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. See also Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Jose Manuel,WIPO Case No. D2010-2031.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known and well-established registered trademark BET365, in which the Complainant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that it has rights in and commercial use of the same since 2001. The first element of the Policy, therefore, has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In order to determine whether the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(c) of the Policy), attention must be paid to any of the following circumstances in particular but without limitation:
- whether there is any evidence of the Respondent’s 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 before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute;
- whether the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights;
- whether the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
There is no evidence before the Panel to show that the Respondent was acting in pursuance of any rights or legitimate interests with respect to registering the disputed domain name. On the contrary, if the Respondent had any such rights or legitimate interests, the Respondent would have reasonably been expected to assert them, which the Respondent clearly has not done, by not replying to the Complaint. See Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.
There is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s well-known and well-established registered trademark BET365. In fact, in the view of the Panel, the adoption by the Respondent of the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known registered trademark BET365 inevitably leads to confusion on the part of Internet users and consumers seeking information about the Complainant and its services (see further on this point below). Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent is consequentially tarnishing the Complainant’s well-known and, therefore, valuable registered trademark BET365 and also the valuable goodwill that the Complainant has established in this trademark through advertising and commercial use of the same over many years, sufficient evidence of which has been provided to the Panel as mentioned above, without any right or legal justification for doing so.
Also, the Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Likewise, no evidence has been adduced that the Respondent has commonly been known by the disputed domain name; nor, for the reasons mentioned above, is the Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Therefore, for all the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Regarding the bad faith requirement, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four examples of acts, which prima facie constitute evidence of bad faith. However, this list is not exhaustive, but merely illustrative. See Nova Banka v. Iris,WIPO Case No. D2003-0366.
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is particularly relevant to the present case and provides that there is evidence of bad faith in the following circumstances:
“by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] web site or other on line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [its] web site or location.”
Based on the record, the Panel considers that the Respondent, by registering the disputed domain name, is trading unfairly on the Complainants’ valuable goodwill established in its well-known and well-established registered trademark BET365.
By registering and using the disputed domain name incorporating the well-known and well-established registered trademark BET365, the effect is to mislead Internet users and consumers into thinking that the Respondent is, in some way or another, connected to, sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant and its business; or that the Respondent’s activities are approved or endorsed by the Complainant. None of which the Panel can find, on the basis of the record, is, in fact, the situation. Such misleading consequences, in the view of the Panel, are indicative of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. See Columbia Insurance Company v. Pampered Gourmet,WIPO Case No. D2004-0649.
Furthermore, see also Microsoft Corporation v. J. Holiday Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1493, in which it was stated that “consumers expect to find a company on the Internet at a domain name address comprised of the company’s name or trademark.” As this is not, in fact, the situation in the present case, the use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name is confusing and misleading and, in the view of the Panel, this is a further indication that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Again, in the absence of any explanation to the contrary by the Respondent, of which none is forthcoming on the record of the case file, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent did not register and use the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s well-known and well-established registered trademark BET365, by chance, but on the basis of being aware of the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark and its business activities in the gambling industry. Indeed, this reasonable inference is strengthened by the fact that the disputed domain name also incorporates the descriptor “poker” which is one of the games offered by the Complainant under its well-known registered trademark BET365. This, in the view of the Panel, is a further indication of bad faith on the part of the Respondent.
Also, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contentions (made in Section 5.A. ii and iii above) that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name by redirecting Internet users interested in the Complainant’s goods and services to its own website for commercial gain, generated by pay-per-click advertising of third-party websites and/or affiliate payments, not only does not constitute legitimate noncommercial or fair use; but also constitutes bad faith on the part of the Respondent. See Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr.Cartwright,WIPO Case No. D2007-0267.
Further, as mentioned above, the failure of the Respondent to answer the cease and desist letter, mentioned above, sent on behalf of the Complainant by its legal representative to the Respondent also suggests bad faith on the part of the Respondent. See America Online, Inc. v. Antonio R. Diaz, WIPO Case No. D2000-1460 and the UDRP cases therein cited.
Finally, the failure also of the Respondent to answer the Complaint or take any part in the present proceedings, again, in the view of the Panel, is another indication of bad faith on the part of the Respondent. See Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002-0787.
Therefore, taking all these particular facts and circumstances into account and for all the above mentioned reasons, as well as those advanced by the Complainant in its contentions, including the disruption by the Respondent of the Complainant’s business (contrary to the provisions of paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy), as set out above and supported by previous WIPO UDRP cases cited by the Complainant, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Ian Blackshaw
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 19, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy