CafePress.com, Inc. v. Domain registrar
Claim Number: FA0805001191346
PARTIES
Complainant is CafePress.com, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Daniel Pontes,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <caffepress.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. (the “Disputed Domain Name”).
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Kendall C. Reed as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 16, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 19, 2008.
On June 3, 2008, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <caffepress.com> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 6, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 26, 2008 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@caffepress.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received in electronic format only, and not in hard copy on June 26, 2008. The Response is therefore incomplete under the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 5. The Panel has chosen to consider this Response in its decision.
An Additional Submission was submitted by Complainant on July 2, 2008 and was determined to be deficient under the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7; the payment for the Additional Submission was received after the deadline for submissions. The Panel has chosen to consider this Additional Submission in its decision.
On
July 1, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Kendall C. Reed as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant is the owner of the following trademark/service marks:
CAFEPRESS.COM & Design, Reg. No. 2,824,950 for specialty merchandising services, namely, promoting the goods and services of others through the distribution of customized advertising materials, namely, customized T-shirts, sweatshirts, baby doll T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee mugs, mouse pads, tote bags, bumper stickers and posters; computerized on-line at retail stores featuring customized T-shirts, sweatshirts, baby doll T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee mugs, mouse pads, tote bags, bumper stickers and posters, management services, namely, on-line business development services, namely, providing start-up support for businesses of others; business development services; business management services, order fulfillment services, customer or services in the field of specialty merchandising and other fulfillment, in class 35; and for the manufacture of customized advertising materials and specialty merchandising for others, namely, customized T-shirts sweatshirts, baby doll T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee mugs, mouse pads, tote bags, bumper stickers and posters, in Class 40.
CP CAEFPRESS.COM & design, Reg. No. 2.569,567, for specialty merchandising services, namely, promoting their goods and services of others through the distribution of customized advertising materials, namely, customized T-shirts, sweatshirts, baby doll T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee mugs, mouse pads, took bags, bumper stickers and posters; and computerized on-line at retail stores featuring customized T-shirts, sweatshirts, baby doll T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee mugs, mouse pads, took bags, bumper stickers and posters, in Class 35.
CAFEPRESS.COM, Reg. No. 2,571,049, for specialty merchandising services, namely, promoting the goods and services of others through the distribution of customized advertising materials, namely, customized T-shirts, sweatshirts, baby doll T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee mugs, mouse pads, tote bags, bumper stickers and posters, computerized on-line retail stores featuring customized T-shirts, sweatshirts, baby doll T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee mugs, mouse pads, tote bags, bumper stickers and posters, in Class 35.
CAFEPRESS, Reg. No. 2,935,560, for specialty merchandising services, namely, promoting the goods and services of others through the distribution of customized advertising materials, namely, customized T-shirts, sweatshirts, baby doll T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee mugs, mouse pads, tote bags, messenger bags, compact discs, CD-ROM’s, tank tops, visors, boxer shorts, flying discs, greeting cards, postcards, calendars, wall clocks, coasters, ski caps, aprons, teddy bears, license plate frames, bibs, picture frames, stickers, bumper stickers and posters; computerized on-line retail stores featuring customized T-shirts, sweatshirts, baby doll T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee mugs, mouse pads, tote bags, messenger bags, compact discs, CD-ROM’s, tank tops, visors, boxer shorts, flying discs, greeting cards, postcards, calendars, wall clocks, coasters, ski caps, aprons, teddy bears, license plate frames, bibs, picture frames, stickers, bumper stickers and posters; management services, namely, online business development services, namely, providing start-up support for businesses of others; business development services, namely, retail and storefront development services; business management services; order fulfillment services; customer services, namely providing customer service and product inquiry services via telephone and e-mail for others, in Class 35; and for manufacture of customized advertising materials and specialty merchandise for others, namely, customized T-shirts, sweatshirts, baby doll T-shirts, baseball caps, coffee mugs, mouse pads, tote bags, messenger bags, compact discs, CD-ROM’s. Tank tops, visors, boxer shorts, flying discs, greeting cards, postcards, calendars, wall clocks, coasters, ski caps, aprons, teddy bears, license plate frames, bibs, picture frames, stickers, bumper stickers and posters, in class of 40.
Complainant is a company that operates the website <cafepress.com>, which provides a venue and capabilities for individuals, organizations and businesses to create, buy and sell customized merchandise online using print-on-demand and e-commerce services. Complainant currently has about 6.5 million members who have created more than 150 million products on more than 90 customizable items including apparel, bags, home and office accessories, music and data CDs, books, prints, posters, and cards. A significant portion of Complainant’s business is derived from the sale of customized T-shirts.
Complainant’s customers can upload design images to their respective accounts on Complainant’s website and use such images to customize merchandise, including T-shirts and other apparel products. Such customers can then purchase such items directly, or set up a virtual shop and sell the products through the shop, or on another website operated by the customer. Once an order is placed, either by the customer or an individual who wants to purchase that customer’s products, Complainant prints the customer-created image on the merchandise, and ships the product to the customer or his designated customer.
Complainant owns the domain name and website accessible at <cafepress.com>, and multiple top-level domain names containing its CAFEPRESS mark in the country codes of foreign countries. Complainant has spent considerable resources building its company and strengthening its trademarks and domain names.
Respondent is the listed registrant for the Disputed Domain Name, <caffepress.com>. The Disputed Domain Name contains targeted advertising and directs users to Complainant’s competitors, and it presumably generates click-through revenues for Respondent. Numerous links to commercial websites appear on the Disputed Domain Name’s web page, featuring goods and services not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant, but competing with the goods and services of Complainant, including advertisements for customized T-shirts, printing goods, and services.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to trademarks and service marks in which Complainant has rights. The only distinction between the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant’s trademarks is the addition of a single letter, “f.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent, located at the Disputed Domain Name, merely offers targeted advertising which redirects traffic away from Complainant and to Complainant’s competitors’ commercial websites.
Respondent has not acquired trademark or service mark rights in the Disputed Domain Name, nor has Respondent ever been commonly known by the domain name <caffepress.com>. Respondent does not own a trademark or service mark registration for CAFFEPRESS.COM or CAFEPRESS. Respondent is not an authorized agent or licensee of Complainant’s products or services, nor is Respondent commonly known by CAFFEPRESS or CAFFEPRESS.COM.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith. Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Disputed Domain Name and its associated website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Respondent is engaging in what is commonly referred to as “typosquatting.”
B. Respondent
Respondent’s response is as follows:
“We are a small family company
from
We sell Coffee Press`s pots like this: http://www.lnt.com/product/index.jsp?productId=1350567
We started early this year, also did buy the domain in year 2007 for $3000 USD.
we have invested all off our money to this business.
We have just not had the time to do online sales yet because offline sales take a lot of time already, but we are expanding.
In
Caffe is used in many languages as the word for coffee
Press is also a common word
About the website whats running right now, we have no idea why its up, maybe it stayed after we did buy the domain from previous registrant.
Or is it registrars page, we don`t know. We have not made any money with it.
And now we can`t change namservers to point it to our server.
About moniker privacy service - its service to protect from spam emails, we did not know that using it is bad.”
C. Complainant’s Additional
Submission:
Respondent’s Response is facially deficient.
Respondent’s Response is entirely comprised of statements unsupported by evidence.
Respondent’s Response does not include Respondent’s name and postal address; it does not provide a preferred method of receipt of communications; it does not state that a copy of the response has been sent or transmitted to Complainant; and, it does not certify that it is complete and accurate and not being presented for improper purpose.
Respondent has failed to show that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks. Respondent’s assertions that the words “caffe” and “press” are common words and therefore not likely to cause confusion is irrelevant to an analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent continues to utilize the Disputed Domain Name to display advertising for customized T-shirt goods and services of the same type offered by Complainant.
Respondent has not shown that it utilizes the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Respondent alleges that it is a small family company engaged in the sale of “Coffee Press’s pots,” but has not provided evidence sufficient to show that it is in the business of selling such products, or that it is using, or has concrete plans to use, the disputed domain name to promote “coffee press” goods and services.
Respondent states that it has nothing to do with the domain parking advertisement website displayed at the domain <caffepress.com> and that it is either the same website that appeared under previous registrant of the domain, or that the domain parking website is a “registrar’s page.” However, the non-use of the domain name confusingly similar to another’s trademark does not help Respondent establish rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name.
Respondent’s assertion that it is not yet had time to develop online sales, “but we are expanding,” is insufficient to demonstrate that it is making plans to utilize the Disputed Domain Name.
Respondent has made no showing that it is commonly known by “Caffepress.” The Response contains no evidence of Respondent doing business under this name, other than the mere unsupported allegation that it started doing business this year, and has future plans to do so online through the Disputed Domain Name.
Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name is in bad faith. Respondent alleges is that it did not know about Complainant’s <cafepress.com> domain name. However, Respondent had, at a minimum, constructive knowledge of Complainant’s trademark registrations, all of which were granted well before Respondent’s purchase of the Disputed Domain Name in 2007.
Respondent alleges that it is a small family company that engages in the sale of “Coffee Press’s pots,” however Respondent has not provided evidence sufficient to show that it is using the Disputed Domain Name to promote “coffee press” devices, or that it engages in any business activity.
Respondent suggests that it has nothing to do with the domain parking service that currently appears at the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent speculates that this website is either the same website that appeared before Respondent purchased the Disputed Domain Name in 2007 or that the website belongs to the registrar. However, this speculation does not help Respondent because even such “inactive” use of a domain name can constitute bad faith use for purposes of the Policy.
An inference of bad faith usage is warranted here, given the fact that the disputed domain name is a misspelling of Complainant’s well-known trademarks, and utilizes a domain parking service to generate revenue through the display of advertising links to complain its website as well is to complain its direct competitors.
FINDINGS
Complainant is the
owner of the following
CAFEPRESS.COM & Design, Reg. No. 2,824,950;
CP CAEFPRESS.COM & design, Reg. No. 2.569,567;
CAFEPRESS.COM, Reg. No. 2,571,049; and
CAFEPRESS, Reg. NO. 2,935,560
Complainant offers for sale to individuals, organizations and businesses design services and customized merchandise that can be delivered to such customers for further distribution by them or sold and delivered by Complainant on behalf of such customers. Such goods include T-shirts, tank tops, sweatshirts, baseball caps, and other promotional items.
The Disputed Domain Name directs to a website (“Respondent’s Website”) on which appear listings of websites of third parties (with click-through capacity) who offer for sale customized T-shirts, other apparel items, and other promotional products. Further, Respondent’s Website includes organizational divisions specifically for “T-Shirts,” “Shirts,” “Screen Printing,” Wholesale Clothing,” and “Promotional Products,” among other product types.
Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name or any name that is similar thereto. Respondent has not demonstrated efforts in preparation to use the Disputed Domain Name in the future. Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use any of Complainant’s trademarks. Further, Respondent does not have rights in any trademark that is similar to Complainant’s trademarks or the Disputed Domain Name.
The Disputed Domain Name was initially registered on February 22, 2004, and was acquired by Respondents in 2007.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect to the Disputed Domain Name.
Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name was and is in bad faith.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) the Respondent has 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.
Preliminary issue: Respondent’s Deficient
Response
Respondent’s Response is deficient because it was not timely presented in hard copy format and because it does not include Respondent’s contact information, and for these reasons the Panel has the discretion to ignore it, placing Respondent in a default posture. See Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO Mar. 4, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s failure to submit a hard copy of the response and its failure to include any evidence to support a finding in its favor placed the respondent in a de facto default posture, permitting the panel to draw all appropriate inferences stated in the complaint). However, this panel believes that the deficiencies are technical in nature and do not warrant the penalty of placing Respondent in a default position. See J.W. Spear & Sons PLC v. Fun League Mgmt., FA 180628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (finding that where respondent submitted a timely response electronically, but failed to submit a hard copy of the response on time, “[t]he Panel is of the view that given the technical nature of the breach and the need to resolve the real dispute between the parties that this submission should be allowed and given due weight”).
This element has two aspects, to wit: 1) whether Complainant has relevant trademark rights, and 2) whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark(s).
Rights in a trademark or service mark can be demonstrated by way of a trademark registration in a national office. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive."); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
For purposes of making the comparison between a disputed domain name and a trademark to determine whether the two are identical or confusingly similar, the relevant focus is at the alpha-numeric level without regard to the involved goods or services.
Further, for purposes of making the comparison between a disputed domain name and a trademark to determine whether the two are identical or confusingly similar, minor variations, such as the addition or deletion of a single letter, and the presence or absence of top-level domain identifiers are not relevant. See Nat’l Geographic Soc’y v. Stoneybrook Invs., FA 96263 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2001) (finding that the domain name <nationalgeograhics.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC mark); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that <oicq.net> and <oicq.com> are confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, ICQ).
In the present
case, Complainant is the owner of the above-noted
The Disputed Domain Name is <caffepress.com>.
The only two differences between Complainant’s trademarks and the Disputed Domain Name are the addition of a single “f” and the top level domain identifier “.com.” As such, the mark and the Disputed Domain Name are confusingly similar.
As such, Complainant has established the first required element under the Policy.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in respect of a disputed domain name in any way acceptable to the Panel, specifically including without limitation the following:
(i) before any notice of the dispute, use of or demonstratable preparations to use the domain name or the name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name;
(iii) making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
In the present case, Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has demonstrated that that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s marks in any fashion. Complaint has shown that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant asserts that Respondent does not have a trademark in the Disputed Domain Name, and Complainant asserts that Respondent has not demonstrated preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or any website corresponding to the Disputed Domain Dame in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Respondent has failed to meet its burdens in response. Respondent does not provide evidence that its name is “Caffe Press,” or any variant thereof. Respondent does not provide evidence that it is currently using the Disputed Domain Name to offer any goods or services. Respondent does not provide evidence that is it using the Disputed Domain Name in a fashion that would constitute a noncommercial fair use.
Respondent does assert that it is planning to use the Disputed Domain Name in the future to sell coffee press devices, which is a legitimate offering of goods, but Respondent does not provide any evidence to support this assertion.
Respondent does not provide
evidence that in some other way it has rights or legitimate interests in the
Disputed Domain Name.
As such, Complainant has established the second required element under the Policy.
One of the examples of bad faith conduct under Policy ¶ 4(b) is sub-section (iv), and this sub-section reads as follows:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or for product or service on your website or location.”
The use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the main name is evidence of bad faith. See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the respondents registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to his fraudulent website by using the complainants famous marks and likenesses); see also Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) ( “Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another’s mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”).
The use of a domain name to intentionally
attempt to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the
domain name can be evidence of bad faith even in a situation where the respondent
has parked a domain name and does not control the content appearing at the
parked site; the respondent is ultimately responsible for how the domain name
is used, and if the use is in bad faith, the bad faith is attributable to the
respondent. See State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins.
For purposes of determining a respondent’s intent in situations where the respondent is not the initial registrant of the disputed domain name, the date of registration is the date on which the respondent acquired the domain name. See Google Inc., v. Yi Wu Shi Shuangfeng Jixie Youxian Gongsi, FA 1159972 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2008) ( finding that the Respondent’s relevant registration date was the date on which it acquired the disputed domain name that had been previously registered by a third party), see also Gewista-Werbegesellschaft mbH v. Unasi Inc., D2005-1051 (WIPO) November 22, 2005) (“ the fact that of the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name itself but acquired it from the previous owner, does not mean that the Respondent has not “registered” the domain name within the meaning of the Policy since there is no reason to differentiate between a direct registration and registration after transfer. The domain name at issue was in fact ‘registered’ within the meaning of the policy when it had been acquired by the respondent [from a prior registrant].”
In the present case, Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent’s Website is a commercial website; Respondent’s Website contains a number of links to third parties to whom an Internet user can go (click-through) to purchase goods and services. It is not relevant whether, as Respondent asserts, Respondent has not received money as a result of the operation of Respondent’s Website. The distinction for purposes of the Policy is commercial versus non-commercial. Who profits is not important.
Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to Respondent’s Website. This Panel finds the requisite intentionality because the contrary is not credible. The expression “cafepress” is not logically or experientially related to the promotion or sale of T-shirts, tank tops, sweatshirts, baseball caps, and other promotional items. The connection is fanciful. Respondent’s use of essentially the same expression “caffepress” for the same purposes, that is to promote the sale of T-shirts, other apparel items, and other promotional products, cannot reasonably be coincidental, and the similarity can only be intentional.
The use of an expression that is confusingly similar to Complaint’s trademarks to promote the sale of goods competing with Complainant’s goods must necessarily cause confusion in the minds of those seeking to use the Internet to reach Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s Website. Internet users are not necessarily precise, and it is very possible for an Internet user to type “caffepress” when thinking about Complainant’s goods under Complaint’s trademarks.
With respect to Respondent’s intent at the time it acquired the Disputed Domain Name in 2007 (being the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name by Respondent for purpose of the Policy), this Panel believes that the intent was the same, that is, the intent was to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement thereof.
Respondent asserts that its intention in acquiring the Disputed Domain Name was to further its efforts to establish and operate a business selling coffee press devices. However, Respondent provides no supporting evidence for this assertion.
Respondent argues that the words “caffe” and “press,” and presumably the combined expression “caffe press,” are generic and/or descriptive, and for this reason the use of these words and expression in the Disputed Domain Name should not be objectionable. Whereas Respondent is correct that these words and expression can be used in generic and descriptive ways, this is not in fact how these words and this expression are being used by Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name. As noted, these words and expression are being used to create confusion on the part of Internet users specifically with respect to Complainant, which, as noted above and under the circumstances, is a bad faith use pursuant to the Policy.
As such, Complainant has established the third and final required element under the Policy.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <caffepress.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Kendall C. Reed, Panelist
Dated: July 27, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum