The Complainant is Michelin Recherche et Technique S.A. of Granges-Paccot, Switzerland, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondents are A Domain Privacy of Beaumaris, Victoria, Australia; and Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host Master of Tortola, Virgin Islands (British), Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name And Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with A, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 1, 2013. On March 1, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 4, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 14, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 15, 2013.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 March 20, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 9, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 10, 2013.
The Center appointed Tan Tee Jim, S.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on April 15, 2013. 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 Michelin Recherche et Technique S.A. (“Michelin”), an established tire manufacturer with its registered office in Switzerland. Michelin owns the BFGOODRICH trade mark following the acquisition of the BFGoodrich Corporation, an American tire manufacturer. The Complainant sells tires under the BFGOODRICH trade mark.
The Complainant has registered the BFGOODRICH trade mark around the world and in particular in Australia:
BFGOODRICH, Australian Trade Mark No. 306047, dated April 4, 1977, duly renewed and covering goods in class 12 (i.e. Rubber tyres, inner tubes, and tyre repair materials manufactured from India-rubber and gutta-percha being goods and accessories for vehicles in this class )
The Complainant also owns several domain names incorporating the BFGOODRICH trade mark, such as
registered on August 15, 1996;
registered on June 19, 1997; and
The Complainant has submitted evidence of the registration of the BFGOODRICH trade mark in Australia, as well as its ownership of the above domain names.
The subject matter of the dispute is the domain name , registered by the Respondent on October 24, 2012 (the “Disputed Domain Name”). The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website page with commercial links which are largely related to the automotive industry, particularly, the Complainant’s tires and tires from the Complainant’s competitors.
The Complainant did not send a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent as the Respondent operates an anonymous service which, in the Complainant’s words, “is used to not reply”, i.e. a privacy shield service to hide its identification and contact information. The Complainant therefore initiated the present proceedings against A Domain Privacy to obtain cancellation of the Disputed Domain Name.
After the filing of the Complaint, the identity of the registrant was revealed by A Domain Privacy as Transure Enterprise Ltd (“Transure”), company with a registered address in the Virgin Islands (British). The Complainant added Transure as a Respondent, on the basis that both Transure and A Domain Privacy were responsible for the harm suffered by the Complainant. In this Decision, no distinction will be made between the Respondents in this Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
1. The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
2. The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
3. The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant submits principally as follows:
Misspelled Internet addresses
(1) The BFGOODRICH trade mark enjoys a worldwide reputation and points out that previous UDRP panels have considered the mark as “well-known” or “famous”. The Disputed Domain Name substantially imitates the Complainant’s well-known and famous BFGOODRICH trade mark, with only one misspelled element (the letter “F” in BFGOODRICH) replaced by the letter “R”.
(2) The mere displacement of one letter does not significantly affect the appearance of the Disputed Domain Name, resulting in confusing similarity and/or virtual identity arising easily from typing errors made by Internet users attempting to access the Complainant’s website and being diverted to the Disputed Domain Name. Reference is made to Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin (Michelin), Michelin Recherche et Technique S.A. v. Santiago Holdings Ltd, PrivacyP,WIPO Case No. D2012-0635, in which slight misspellings were held to be “confusingly similar”.
(3) The phenomenon of taking advantage of misspelled Internet addresses (“typosquatting”) has been recognized and held in past UDRP decisions as creating domain names which are “confusingly similar” to the relevant trade mark(s).
Addition of generic term “tires”
(4) The mere addition of the generic and descriptive term “tires” does not dispel the likelihood of confusion. Reference is made to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. GlobalCom, Henry Bloom,WIPO Case No. D2011-0700. In fact, the term “tires” refers to the Complainant’s products and area of business.
Addition of generic Top Level Domain “.com”
(5) The gTLD “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark and the Disputed Domain Name (Accor v. Noldc Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0016). Adding a generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) is insufficient to avoid a finding of “confusing similarity” (Titoni AG v. Runxin Wang,WIPO Case No. D2008-0820)
Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name
The Complainant submits principally as follows:
No affiliation with or authorization from the Complainant
(1) The Respondents are not affiliated with the Complainant. They were not authorized by the Complainant to use the BFGOODRICH trade mark or register any domain name incorporating the BFGOODRICH trade mark.
No rights or interests as reseller
(2) The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name as a reseller under the “Oki Data” test as set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.
No prior rights or interests
(3) The Respondents have no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name as they registered the Disputed Domain Name only after the Complainant had registered the BFGOODRICH trade mark.
No license to use the BFGOODRICH trade mark
(4) The Respondents have no license from the Complainant to use the BFGOODRICH trade mark. In the absence of any license from the Complainant to use the trade mark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name can reasonably be claimed. (LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, A Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,WIPO Case No. D2010-0138; and L’Oreal and Laboratoire Garnier et Compagnie v. Mitesh Soma,WIPO Case No. D2011-0860)
No bona fide offering of goods or services
(5) The Respondents did not demonstrate use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with the offering of goods or services. The Disputed Domain Name merely directs Internet users to a parking page displaying pay-per-click links. Such circumstances do not represent a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. (eDreams, Inc. v. Private Whois,WIPO Case No. D2009-1507; and Jean Heitz v. Haberfield Naturopathic Centre/Rosa Ghidella,WIPO Case No. D2011-1471)
Typosquatting
(6) By registering the Disputed Domain Name that differs from the BFGOODRICH trade mark by one letter, the Respondents seek to take advantage of Internet users through the Disputed Domain Name’s confusing similarity to the BFGOODRICH trade mark. “Typosquatting” does not constitute a legitimate use of a trade mark. (Microsoft Corporation v. Global Net 200 Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0554; E, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation,WIPO Case No. D2006-1043; and FragranceX.com, Inc v. Argosweb Corp a/k/a Oleg Techino in this name and under various aliases, WuWeb Pty Ltd, Alichec Inc., Belroots Pty Ltd, Crystal Image Pty Ltd, Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd, Lidnick Webcorp, Liquid SEO Limited, Loshedina Inc, Luchichang Pty Ltd, Netmilo Pty Ltd, Orel Hlasek LLC, Volchar Pty Ltd, Web Pescados LLC, Webatopia Marketing Limited, ZincFusion Limited, Chin-Hui Wu, Domain Administrator, Denholm Borg, Denesh Kumar, Marcelos Vainez, Alex Ovechkin, Vlad Obchikov,WIPO Case No. D2010-1237)
Privacy shield
(7) The Respondents registered the Disputed Domain Name with a privacy shield service to hide the identity of Transure and to prevent Transure from being contacted by the Complainant. Such a behavior highlights the fact that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
The Complainants cite Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP for the requirement that bad faith registration and bad faith use be proven in order to establish that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant’s principal contentions are the following: Registration in bad faith
Complainant and its trade marks are well-known throughout the world
(1) The Complainant and its trade marks are well-known throughout the world. It is therefore implausible that the Respondents would not have had the Complainant or its trade marks in mind when they registered the Disputed Domain Name.
BFGOODRICH trade mark is well-known throughout the world
(2) The BFGOODRICH trade mark is well-known throughout the world. It is therefore unlikely that the Respondents would have been unaware of the Complainant’s proprietary rights in the BFGOODRICH trade mark.
Failure to conduct trade mark search or Internet search
(3) The Respondents’ failure to conduct a quick BFGOODRICH trade mark search or even a simple Internet search, which would have revealed the existence of the Complainant and its trade mark, is a contributory factor to their bad faith. (Lancome Parfums et Beaute & Cie, L’Oreal v. 10 Selling,WIPO Case No. D2008-0226).
Respondents aware of Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark
(4) As the Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark enjoyed worldwide reputation, and in light of the Respondents’ imitation of the BFGOODRICH trade mark combined with the term “tires” referring to products made in the Complainant’s line of business, it is clear that the Respondents were aware of the Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark.
(5) Registration in bad faith can also be inferred as the Respondents had no connection to the BFGOODRICH trade mark and yet registered a domain name that is very similar to the BFGOODRICH trade mark. Bad faith may be found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trade mark that its use by someone with no connection to the trade mark suggests opportunistic bad faith. (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; and Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,WIPO Case No. D2006-0303)
(6) Knowledge of the Complainant’s intellectual property rights, including trade marks, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, proves bad faith registration. (Universal Inc. v. S,WIPO Case No. D2007-0077; and Alstom v. Domain Investments LLC,WIPO Case No. D2008-0287)
Typosquatting
(7) Typosquatting has been recognized as evidence of bad faith registration per se (Paragon Gifts, Inc. v. Domain Contact,WIPO Case No. D2004-0107; ESPN, Inc. v. XC2,WIPO Case No. D2005-0444; and E, Inc v. Digi Real Estate Foundation,WIPO Case No. D2006-1043).
Privacy shield
(8) The Respondents registered the Disputed Domain Name with a privacy shield service. The presence of such a service used in the act of typosquatting should be regarded as an element indicating bad faith. Use in bad faith
Use of well-known trade mark to attract Internet users for commercial gains
(9) The Respondents were aware of the BFGOODRICH trade mark worldwide and specifically in Australia. The Respondents used the Disputed Domain Name to direct Internet users to a webpage displaying pay-per-click links, which would generate revenue for the Respondents. The Respondents thereby take undue advantage of the Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark to generate profits. The use of a well-known trade mark to attract Internet users for commercial gains constitutes bad faith pursuant to the UDRP. (F Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Anna Valdieri,WIPO Case No. D2007-0956; Alstom v. FM Laughna,WIPO Case No. D2007-1736; and L’Oreal SA v. LV Kefeng,WIPO Case No. D2009-1231)
Choice of Disputed Domain Name
(10) Choosing the Disputed Domain Name because of its similarity to the Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark in the hope and expectation that the similarity will result in an increased number of Internet users being drawn to the Respondents’ page is an act of bad faith. (Classmates Online, Inc v. Mary Lamb,WIPO Case No. D2009-0715; and RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. zuo xingyu,WIPO Case No. D2010-0627)
Confusingly similar domain name diverting Internet traffic
(11) Previous panels have held that where the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s trade mark, “a likelihood of confusion is presumed, and such confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from Complainant’s site to Respondent’s site”. (E, Inc. v. Triple E Holdings Limited,WIPO Case No. D2006-1095; L'oreal SA v. 张容容, LinChaoJie, Guangxi NanNing IDEA Business Planning Co., Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2010-1318) There is no doubt that many Internet users attempting to visit the Complainant’s website have ended up on the Respondents’ webpage, that is, Internet traffic has been diverted from the Complainant’s site to the Respondents’ site. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To warrant relief, the Complainant must demonstrate that the three elements set out in Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP have been satisfied. They are:
1. The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
3. The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel highlights the following procedural rules that are set out in the Rules:
- Rule 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
- According to Rule 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. Rule 14(b) of the Rules mandates that in the event that 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 therefrom as it considers appropriate.
- Pursuant to Rule 10(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. Rule 10(d) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.
In the present case, the Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and are in default. No exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 14(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the Complaint.
Further, the Respondents’ failure to reply to the Complainant’s contentions may result in the Complainant’s asserted facts being taken as true and reasonable inferences being drawn as the Panel considers appropriate, pursuant to Rule 14(b) of the Rules.
The Panel is also reminded that, notwithstanding the Respondents’ failure to reply to the Complainant’s contentions, the burden of proof remains on the Complainant to satisfy the Panel that the three elements set out in Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP have been proved. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is indeed the owner of the BFGOODRICH trade mark by registration.
It is well established that a gTLD should typically not be taken into consideration for the purposes of evaluating whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark in question. Similarly, it is trite that the addition of a generic or descriptive term (such as “tires”) to a disputed domain name has little or no effect on a determination of the identity or similarity between a disputed domain name and the trade mark in question. The mere addition of a generic or descriptive term does not also exclude a likelihood of confusion. Indeed, the generic or descriptive term may increase, rather than decrease, the likelihood of confusion.
Thus, in the present case, the relevant element in the Disputed Domain Name that is to be compared to the Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark is “”brgoodrich”. The generic or descriptive word “tires” and the gTLD “.com” are to be ignored. This being the case, the Panel is of the view that the “brgoodrich” portion of the Disputed Domain Name is substantially similar to the BFGOODRICH trade mark, the difference consisting of only one letter. This view is supported by UDRP case precedents which had held that slight misspellings in domain names may be regarded as creating domain names “confusingly similar” to the relevant trade marks.
In the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Disputed Domain Name is indeed confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark and the Complainant has made out the first element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances establishing a Respondent’s rights to and legitimate interests in a domain name:
“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):
i. before any notice 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 (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
iii. you are making a legitimate non-commercial 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 Complainant has submitted the following evidence to show that the Respondents do not have any rights to and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name:
(1) The Disputed Domain Name directs Internet users to a parking page displaying pay-per-click links;
(2) The Complainant registered the BFGOODRICH trade mark on April 4, 1977 and that the BFGOODRICH trade mark currently enjoys registered and protected status as a trade mark in Australia;
(3) The DomainTools WhoIs Record indicates that the Respondents registered the Disputed Domain Name on October 24, 2012 (that is, long after the Complainant registered the BFGOODRICH trade mark and started using the mark).
In the absence of any countervailing evidence adduced by the Respondents, the Panel is driven to conclude that the Respondents are not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and are not bona fide offering goods or services.
There is also no evidence of any affiliation or connection between the Complainants and the Respondents, nor was there any authorization given to the Respondents to use the BFGOODRICH trade mark or register a domain name incorporating the BFGOODRICH trade mark. Such lack of evidence further indicates the lack of the Respondent’s rights to and legitimate interests in the Dispute Domain Name. The Panel is convinced in this regard by a line of previous UDRP decisions that indicate that typosquatting does not constitute fair use or legitimate noncommercial use of a domain name.
The Complainant has submitted evidence that that the Respondents registered the Disputed Domain Name with a privacy shield service to hide the identity of Transure and to prevent Transure from being contacted by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that such behavior highlights the fact that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel disagrees that this contention is correct in principle. It depends on the facts of each case. It is entirely plausible that individuals registering domain names for personal websites want to engage the services of a privacy shield service so as to legitimately prevent their names, addresses and personal contact information from being exposed to the world. Therefore, engaging a privacy shield service does not necessarily indicate a lack of rights or legitimate interests.
Nevertheless, in the present case, the fact that the Respondents registered the Disputed Domain Name with a privacy shield service, coupled with the other evidence and matters mentioned above, does point to the lack of the Respondents’ rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out the second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which would evidence the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
i. Circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
ii. You have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
iii. You have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
iv. By using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” Registration in bad faith
Respondents aware of Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the BFGOODRICH trade mark is well-known throughout the world and that it is improbable that the Respondents was unaware of the BFGOODRICH trade mark when they registered the Disputed Domain Name. This does suggest bad faith registration, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the Respondents.
Failure to conduct trade mark search or Internet search
The Complainant has submitted that the Respondents’ failure to conduct a BFGOODRICH trade mark search or Internet search to discover the existence of the Complainant and its trade mark ought to be regarded as a contributory factor to the Respondents’ bad faith, and cites Lancome Parfums et Beaute & Cie, L’Oreal v. 10 Selling,WIPO Case No. D2008-0226. This case in turn cites RRI Financial, Inc. v. Ray Chen,WIPO Case No. D2001-1242 (“RRI Financial”).
The RRI Financial case does not in fact support the Complainant’s submission. It held that constructive knowledge could be imputed to establish knowledge of the complainant’s trade marks. Such constructive knowledge would take the form of trade mark searches. It does not support the proposition that the failure to conduct a trade mark search would of itself establish bad faith. It merely held that failure to conduct a trade mark search does not exclude a respondent from having knowledge of the trade mark in question because constructive knowledge can be imputed.
In the present case, it is likely that the Respondents have constructive knowledge of the BFGOODRICH trade mark. The Panel agrees that it is improbable that the Respondents could not have been unaware of the BFGOODRICH trade mark, given the incontrovertible evidence that the mark has a worldwide reputation.
Having regard to the above, the Panel has determined that the Respondents indeed registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Use in bad faith
Use of well-known trade mark to attract Internet users for commercial gains
Under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP, intentionally attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of a respondent’s website constitutes evidence of bad faith.
It is evident that the Respondents are intentionally attempting to take advantage of a misspelling of the Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark to generate profits from pay-per-click links on the Disputed Domain Name by attracting Internet users with a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark. The choice of the Disputed Domain Name could not also have been coincidental, given its close similarity to the Complainant’s BFGOODRICH trade mark. The inference must be that the Respondents did so in the hope and expectation that the similarity would result in an increased number of Internet users being drawn to the Respondents’ page.
The Panel accepts, on the basis of the Complainant’s cited precedents that where a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trade mark, a likelihood of confusion is presumed and that such confusion will inevitably result in Internet traffic being diverted from a complainant’s website to a respondents’ website, as in this case. The Respondents have not offered any rebuttal to free themselves of the presumption of confusion.
In the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondents have used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that each of the three elements required by Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP is satisfied, and the Complainant is entitled to relief. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, it is the Panel’s order that the Disputed Domain Name be cancelled as requested.
Tan Tee Jim, S.C.
Sole Panelist
Date: May 15, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy