The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. of Torino, Italy, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati – Studio Legale, Italy.
The Respondent is Domains Admin, New Media Nexus of Sydney, Australia, internally represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Uniregistrar Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the ”Center”) on September 9, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On September 10, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on September 21, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 11, 2015.
On October 10, 2015, the Respondent submitted an informal communication. On October 12, 2015, the Respondent expressed an interest in settlement and in accordance with the Complainant’s request for suspension on October 13, 2015, the Center suspended the administrative proceeding on October 13, 2015. Upon the Complainant’s request on October 26, 2015, due to failed settlement attempts the proceeding was reinstituted on October 26, 2015. On November 2, 2015, the Respondent submitted the Response.
The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on November 6, 2015. 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.
On November 9, 2015, the Center received unsolicited Supplemental Submissions from the Complainant, which were forwarded to the Panel. The Center then received the Supplemental Submissions from the Respondent on November 13, 2015, which were forwarded by the Center to the Panel. After having considered the Supplemental Submissions by both Parties, the Panel finds that neither raises any additional evidence or arguments outside of what has (or could have) been submitted in the Complaint and the Response. The Panel will therefore not accept either Parties’ unsolicited Supplemental Submissions and will proceed to decide the case based solely on the Complaint and the Response. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a well-known Italian bank, which was formed on January 1, 2007 following the merger of Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two well-known Italian banking groups. Eurizon Capital SGR is the asset management company within the Complainant’s group of companies. The Complainant holds registered trade mark rights in the EURIZON CAPITAL mark and EURIZON FINANCIAL GROUP mark in various jurisdictions through a number of International and Community registrations. The Complainant also owns and uses numerous domain names that incorporate the EURIZON CAPITAL mark.
The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on July 19, 2014. The Respondent is an Internet marketing company that operates primarily in Australia and the United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is in the business of acquiring domain names either for subsequent development, for use in paid-search advertising or for resale.
The Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to a parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
(a) Eurizon Capital SGR is the asset management company within the Complainant’s group of companies, and was established in 1988. The Complainant is the owner of the registered trade mark rights in the EURIZON CAPITAL mark and EURIZON FINANCIAL GROUP mark, including:
(i) International Trade Mark Registration No. 914064 for EURIZON FINANCIAL GROUP mark, registered on January 11, 2007, in class 36, which also covers Australia;
(ii) European Community Trade Mark Registration No. 5283460 for EURIZON CAPITAL mark, registered on June 21, 2007, in class 36; and
(iii) Italian Trade Mark Registration No. 1235936 for EURIZON CAPITAL mark, registered on January 11, 2010, in class 36.
The Complainant and its subsidiaries also hold several domain names that incorporate the EURIZON CAPITAL mark. Therefore, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL mark and EURIZON FINANCIAL GROUP mark at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name.
(b) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL mark and EURIZON FINANCIAL GROUP mark.
(c) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use the Disputed Domain Name, and the Respondent is in no way related to the Complainant. The Respondent’s name also does not correspond to the Disputed Domain Name, and there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “eurizon”. In addition, there is no fair or noncommercial use of the Disputed Domain Name.
(d) the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith as:
(i) the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL mark and EURIZON FINANCIAL GROUP mark are distinctive and well-known around the world, and the Respondent must have therefore had knowledge of the Complainant’s marks as the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to them;
(ii) the Disputed Domain Name is being used by the Respondent to intentionally attract users to its parking page for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks and diverting traffic away from the Complainant’s websites; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that sponsors banking and financial services, which may compete with the Complainant’s services and may mislead its clients or result in the loss of potential clients.
(e) The Complainant has been a part of numerous UDRP cases where panels have ordered the transfer
or cancellation of domain names in favour of the Complainant, as they detected bad faith registrations.
(f) On November 18, 2014, the Complainant’s legal representative had sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, requesting the voluntary transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent denied the Complainant’s claim and invited the Complainant to make an offer to purchase the Disputed Domain Name, and stated that any offers below USD 1,000 would not be considered. The Complainant alleges that this shows that the Respondent’s true intent in registering the Disputed Domain Name was to sell it to the Complainant or a competitor for valuable consideration, in excess of its out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent
The Respondent’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
(a) The Respondent is an Australian-based Internet marketing company that operates primarily in Australia and the United States. It acquires domain names incorporating common and made-up words, phrases or expresses, for use with paid-search advertising, for the development of fully functioning websites, or for resale. Prior to the development of a website, each domain name held by the Respondent reverts by default to a parking site on “”. In some instances where sales enquires are received, it may result in the sale of a domain name.
(b) The Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name on July 19, 2014. The Respondent did not conceal its identity.
(c) The Respondent denies having registered the Disputed Domain Name on the basis of the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL mark, and claims that it had no knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark rights at the time that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name.
(d) Prior to acquiring the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent claims to have conducted an online trade mark search in relation to the Disputed Domain Name on the official trade mark database for Australia and the United States (the markets in which it primarily operates). There were no results which revealed that the Disputed Domain Name was subject to trade mark rights. The Respondent claims that if the trade mark search had revealed trade mark rights in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, then it would have not proceeded to register the Disputed Domain Name.
(e) The Respondent states that it did not acquire the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant, to disrupt the Complainant’s business, to confuse consumers who are searching for the Complainant’s website, or to prevent the Complainant from owning a domain name that incorporates its trade mark.
(f) The Disputed Domain Name involves a new Generic Top-Level domain (“new gTLDs”) extension (i.e., “.capital”). There is a sunrise period in place allowing trade mark holders to register new gTLDs corresponding to their marks, before they become generally available to the public. There is then a trade mark claims period of at least 90 days, where anyone who tries to acquire a domain name that corresponds to a trade mark registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse will receive a notification concerning such trade mark. The Respondent claims that it received no such notification when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, and it is not the fault of the Respondent if the Complainant was negligent in securing the Disputed Domain Name during the available timeframe.
(g) If the Respondent was really intent on doing harm to the Complainant, then it would have also registered other domain names corresponding to the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL and EURIZON FINANCIAL GROUP marks.
(h) The Respondent contends that the Complainant has no presence in Australia (where the Respondent is based). The Complainant has not registered a domain name for Australia, i.e., , a market in which the Complainant allegedly operates. Further, a search conducted by the Respondent on “” for “does Eurizon Capital have an office in Australia”, shows results for Eurizon Capital SGR, but with the annotation that the results are “missing” Australia from the search. The Respondent claims that this supports its allegation that it had no knowledge of the Complainant, and that the Complainant is not well-known in Australia.
(i) The Respondent also argues that the Complainant’s website “” has not been configured correctly, which is another contributing factor as to why it was not aware of the Complainant. If is inserted into the browser window, then an error message appears saying that the page cannot be displayed. In order to access the Complainant’s website, users would need to type “”. The Respondent claims that this is why it was not aware of the Complainant at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name, as when it carried out its routine check on , an error message appeared.
(j) The Respondent was initially approached by the Complainant’s legal representative on November 18, 2014. Subsequent communications ensued between the Parties from November 18, 2014 to November 26, 2014. The Respondent contends that the Complainant sent “aggressive” and “over-bearing” communications to the Respondent, and the Respondent believed that they were merely trying to “strong-arm” the Respondent into handing over the Disputed Domain Name, as its further trade mark searches for EURIZON CAPITAL in Australia and the United States revealed no results. The Respondent states that it had no interest in the EURIZON FINANCIAL GROUP mark, or in the Italian or European markets, and so ignored references to them by the Complainant. On November 24, 2014, the Complainant offered to pay the Respondent EUR 150 for the purposes of arranging the technical transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. However, the Respondent turned down the Complainant’s offer on November 26, 2014, and invited the Complaint to make a serious offer if they wished. No response was received from the Complainant. A follow up email was sent by the Respondent to the Complainant on August 25, 2015 to see if the Complainant was still interested in acquiring the Disputed Domain Name, but no further response was received.
(k) There is no trade mark annotation on the Complainant’s website indicating that it has trade mark rights in EURIZON or EURIZON CAPITAL, even though such trade mark annotation was applied in respect of the Complainant’s MORNINGSTAR RATING mark on the website. As such, it is logical to presume that the Complainant has no trade mark rights in EURIZON CAPITAL.
(l) For over 12 months, the Respondent has owned (and still owns) 22 domain names incorporating the word “capital” or the new gTLD extension “.capital”. For example, , , , , etc. The Respondent claims that none of these domain name have any “trade mark problems”, and they reinforce the fact that the Respondent has not acted in bad faith with the intent of targeting the Complainant.
(m) The Respondent denies being involved in any other UDRP cases, save for one case in 2009 (National Cable Satellite Corporation d/b/a C-SPAN v. New Media Nexus, NAF Claim Number FA0811001236010). The Respondent believes that it only failed in that case because it did not have the necessary time to prepare the response and was not as experienced in domain names at that time.
(n) The Complainant provides a lengthy list of UDRP cases that it has been involved in, trying to convey the message that it has been successful in all their previous cases. However, the Complainant was unsuccessful in recovering at least 5 domain names.
(o) The Respondent maintains that seeking a fair price for the Disputed Domain Name does not amount to bad faith.
(p) The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page operated by S, which displays pay-per-click advertising links. Sedo automatically generates links based on the contextual meaning of the terms contained in the Disputed Domain Name, i.e., capital. The Respondent did not select any of the links on the parking page with the intent of profiting from the Complainant’s trade marks. The Respondent has only earned a small amount for the monetization of the Disputed Domain Name on the Sedo platform.
(q) The Respondent owns about 2,000 domain names. Therefore, whilst the Respondent tries to avoid trade mark issues, it is impossible for it to be aware of every trade mark in every country, and to be aware of every advertising link that appears on every website to which its domain names resolve.
(r) It has been held by other UDRP panels that the use of pay-per-click websites can constitute a bona fide offering of services, unless it is tainted by evidence of bad faith.
(s) The Respondent requests that a determination of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking be found against the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used by in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel notes that the Respondent has raised various arguments claiming that it had no knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark rights at the time that it registered the Disputed Domain Name. However, the test for determining whether or not the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark in which it has rights involves a comparison between the trade mark and the Disputed Domain Name itself. Whether or not the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trade mark rights at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name is irrelevant for the purposes of considering this first element, but may be relevant in determining the second and third element below.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the EURIZON CAPITAL trade mark and EURIZON FINANCIAL GROUP trade mark, based on its International Registration (which covers Australia), its European Community trade mark registration and Italian trade mark registration. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the word “eurizon”, which is identical to the distinctive part of the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL and EURIZON FINANCIAL GROUP marks.
Further, as stated in paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), the “applicable top-level suffix in the domain name (e.g., ‘com’) would usually be disregarded under the confusing similarity test (as it is a technical requirement of registration), except in certain cases where the applicable top-level suffix may itself form part of the relevant trade mark.” In this case, the new gTLD extension (“.capital”) forms part of the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL mark. Considered as a whole, the Disputed Domain Name is therefore identical to the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL mark.
The Panel accordingly finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 states that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent, the respondent then carries the burden of demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the EURIZON CAPITAL or EURIZON FINANCIAL GROUP marks, and there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent which would otherwise entitle the Respondent to use such marks. Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that a prima facie case has been established and it is for the Respondent to show rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following:
(1) before any notice to him of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(2) the respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if he has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(3) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
In the Response, under the second element, the Respondent claims that it had no knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark rights at the time that it registered the Disputed Domain Name. However, the Panel is not convinced that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trade mark rights for the reasons discussed below in respect of the third element (registration and use in bad faith).
The Respondent is in the business of registering domain names for the purposes of using them in relation to pay-per-click advertising, the development of fully functioning websites, and to re-sell them for profit. The Panel wishes to make clear that such business activities can be legitimate and are not in themselves a breach of the Policy. However, where the domain name registered is identical to the complainant’s trademark, especially if such trademark is not a common word, the registrant has a higher burden of proof.
The Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to a parking page which contains sponsored links. As stated in paragraph 2.6 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, use of a domain name to post parking pages or pay-per-click links “may be permissible in some circumstances, but would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a ‘bona fide offering of goods or services’…or from ‘legitimate noncommercial or fair use’ of the domain name, especially where resulting in a connection to goods or services competitive with those of the rights holder.” A common example of permissible use of parking pages or pay-per-click links, which may amount to a right or legitimate interest, is a domain name that consists of a dictionary or common word, and the pay-per-click links genuinely relate to the generic meaning of the domain name.
In this case, the distinctive part of the Disputed Domain Name (i.e., “eurizon”) is not a generic or common term. It incorporates the distinctive part of the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL mark in its entirety, and some of the pay-per-click links on the parking page are links to competitors of the Complainant. This does not look like a coincidence. On the basis of the above, the Panel finds that use of the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a parking page is not sufficient to amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services.
In addition, the Respondent’s name does not correspond to the Disputed Domain Name, and at no point does the Respondent deny the Complainant’s contention (or provide any evidence to show) that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “eurizon”.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent claims that at the time it acquired the Disputed Domain Name, it had no knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark rights and had done a trade mark search in both Australia and the United States (where the Respondent largely operates), which revealed no registered trade marks for EURIZON CAPITAL.
The Panel is not convinced that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name, for the following reasons:
(a) No explanation is provided in the Response as to why the Respondent chose to register the Disputed Domain Name, which incorporates the word “eurizon” and the gTLD extension “.capital”. The Respondent merely asserts that it is in the business of registering domain names that incorporate common and made-up domain names. The Panel finds it inconceivable that the Respondent could not have known about the Complainant’s prior rights, as it chose to register a domain name that replicates the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL mark in its entirety, and “eurizon” is a made-up word which has no common meaning in the English language.
(b) The Respondent claims that the Complainant has no office in Australia, and it is therefore not well-known in Australia where the Respondent is based. In this day and age, where the Internet is widely used, the well-known status of a trade mark is not necessarily restricted to the physical geographic boundaries determined by where the trade mark holder is based. The Respondent’s recent Internet search on “” for “does Eurizon Capital have an office in Australia”, even revealed top search results for Eurizon Capital SGR (the subsidiary of the Complainant). It is irrelevant that the annotation in the results states that it is “missing” Australia from the search or the fact that the Complainant does not have a presence in Australia. The key fact is that a search for “Eurizon Capital” on “” resulted in search results related to the Complainant’s subsidiary.
(c) The Respondent claims that prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name it carried out online trade mark searches corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in Australia and the United States, and that “doing the usual (original) research to acquire the [Disputed Domain Name], a routine check was made on and that original check resulted in the error message…”. In light of the foregoing steps allegedly taken by the Respondent prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name, it seems reasonable to assume that the Respondent would have conducted a simple Internet search (e.g., on “”) for “eurizon capital”. Such search would have inevitably revealed results of the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL mark, as demonstrated by the recent search carried out by the Respondent and attached at Annex 2 of the Response. It has been accepted by some UDRP panels that evidence of bad faith includes constructive notice of a trade mark at the time of registration of a domain name by a respondent (see Caesar World, Inc. v. Forum LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0517 and The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,WIPO Case No. D2009-0113). The Panel notes that a cursory search for “eurizon” on the search engines Google and Yahoo! ( and ) reveal the Complainant, the Complainant’s subsidiary and its website as the top search results, with ensuing hits also largely related to various pages concerning the Complainant and its website.
(d) Lastly, the Respondent claims that it registered the Disputed Domain Name as part of several other domain names incorporating the word “capital” or gTLD extension “.capital”, and that these other domain names do not have “any trade mark problems”. The Respondent provided a list of about 22 other domain names. For example, , , , , , . In accordance with the Panel’s powers granted under paragraph 10(a) of the Rules, the Panel found it necessary to conduct its own factual research in respect of these 22 other domain names. From a simple Internet search on Google, the Panel found that the majority of these 22 other domain names registered and relied on by the Respondent, actually correspond to other brands operated by companies in the financial industry, including in the United States (which is one of the main countries in which the Respondent allegedly conducts its business). For example, a simple search of “dale capital” on “” reveals multiple results showing that Dale Capital Group Limited is a publicly-quoted private equity investment holding company, and a simple search of “747 capital” revealed that 747 Capital is a private equity investment firm operating in the United States. It cannot be mere coincidence that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name along with several other domain names which reflect third party trade marks utilized in the financial industry.
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
With regard to use in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been used by the Respondent for the purposes of: (i) selling it to the Complainant or a competitor in return for valuable consideration in excess of its out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; and (ii) intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the parking page, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s EURIZON CAPITAL trade mark.
During the Respondent’s correspondence with the Complainant in November 2014 and August 2015, it responded to the emails issued by the Complainant’s legal representative by denying the Complainant’s assertions of its trade mark rights and offering to sell the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent made it clear that it would be willing to sell the Disputed Domain Name, but that “any offers below [USD] 1,000 will NOT be considered [sic]”. This is clearly an indication that the Respondent was seeking to sell the Disputed Domain Name for a sum in excess of its out-of-pocket expenses directly related to it. It was only after these proceedings had commenced that the Respondent offered to transfer the Disputed Domain Name for the amount of USD 250.
Further, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page which includes sponsored links to competitors of the Complainant, which is a common example of bad faith use. The Respondent claims that Sedo automatically generates links on the parking page to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves, and that the Respondent did not select any of the links (including the links to the Complainant’s competitors) on the parking page. The Respondent further claims that it has only earned a small amount for parking the Disputed Domain Name. However, a registrant remains responsible for the content appearing on a website to which its domain name resolves, even if the registrant is not exercising direct control over the content (e.g. advertising links that are automatically generated). As stated in paragraph 3.8 of the WIPO Overview 2.0. to “the extent that the presence of certain advertising or links under such arrangement may constitute evidence of bad faith use of the relevant domain name, such presence would usually be attributed to the registrant unless it can show some good faith attempt toward preventing inclusion of advertising or links which profit from trading on third-party trade marks. It would normally be sufficient to show that profit or ‘commercial gain’ was made by a third party, such as by the operator of an advertising revenue arrangement applicable to the registrant, or a domain name parking service used by the registrant.” See also Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna,WIPO Case No. D2007-1912.
Lastly, the Respondent alleges that the Complainant had failed to register the Disputed Domain Name during the relevant sunrise period or to lodge its trade mark rights with the Trademark Clearinghouse. However, this does not mean that the Complainant has renounced its rights in the Disputed Domain Name and/or that it is not able to utilize the Policy to protect its trade mark rights. Such would defeat the purpose of the Policy and would put a substantial burden on all trade mark holders to register every single domain name identical or similar to its trade marks. See Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna,WIPO Case No. D2007-1912.
In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, and paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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.
Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: November 20, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy