Yahoo! Inc. v. Jamie
Drummond
Claim Number: FA0911001295572
PARTIES
Complainant is Yahoo! Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mike
Rodenbaugh, of Rodenbaugh Law,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <yahoo7.tv>, registered with eNom.
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.
Mr. Maninder Singh as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant has submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on November 19, 2009; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 3, 2009.
On November
20, 2009, eNom confirmed by e-mail
to the National Arbitration Forum that the <yahoo7.tv> domain name is registered
with eNom and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. eNom has verified that Respondent is bound by
the eNom 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 December
14, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 4,
2010 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@yahoo7.tv by
e-mail.
A Response was received on January 4, 2010. However, a hard copy of the Response was not
received by the response deadline, and so the Response was determined to be
deficient by the National Arbitration Forum because it is not in compliance
with ICANN Rule 5.
On 09.01.2010, pursuant
to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mr. Maninder Singh as
the Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant made the following contentions with regard to its marks
YAHOO!, Seven, and YAHOO!7 :
YAHOO! :
· The complainant has contended that their marks Yahoo!, Seven and Yahoo!7 are top global Internet brands. It is a communications, commerce, and media company that attracts hundreds of millions of users every month through its innovative technology and engaging content and services, making it one of the most trafficked Internet destinations and a world class online company. Yahoo! connects people to their passions, their communities, and the world’s knowledge by offering a comprehensive branded network of searching, directory, information, communication, shopping, electronic commerce, and other online services. Yahoo!'s vision is to be the center of people's online lives by delivering personally relevant, meaningful Internet experiences.
· It is also contended that the mark YAHOO! is widely recognized. The Company owns the service and trade mark and the trade name YAHOO! and the domain names YAHOO.COM and YAHOO.TV, among many others. Through continuous and exclusive use since 1994, the YAHOO! mark has become one of the most known brands in the world. In this regard it relied upon the 2008 BusinessWeek / Interbrand Report “Best Global Brands 2008” and the Millward Brown/Financial Times report “BRANDZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands” to contend that both these reports have ranked Yahoo! as one of the top 100 global brands.
·
It has also been contended in the complaint that
Seven Network Limited is one of
· It has further been contended that it offers products and services in the broad categories of: Web Portals; Search; Communications and Communities; Media; and Connected Life which includes web directory and search services, email, small business consultancy services, advertising services, sports, stock quotes, real estate and mortgage information and rate quotes, movie reviews, news, weather, sports, yellow pages directory services, maps, online shopping, travel reservations, classified advertising, audio and video streaming, web-store hosting and management, and more. These offerings integrate search, community, personalization, and content to create a powerful and useful user experience.
· The complainant thereafter has contended that Yahoo!’s website at www.yahoo.com has become one of the most visited Internet destinations in the world. As of August 2009, according to comScore’s Media Metrix, Yahoo! has the 3rd largest online global audience, with 595 million unique visitors, reaching over 51% of the global population and responsible for 6.5% of all global duration spent online.
· The complainant has contended that for many years Yahoo! has been offering a wide variety of services using the YAHOO! mark with a descriptive name of its services including, for example, YAHOO! TV, YAHOO! Video, YAHOO! Entertainment, YAHOO! Advertising, YAHOO! Personals, YAHOO! Mail, YAHOO! Messenger, YAHOO! Small Business, YAHOO! Toolbar, YAHOO! Games, YAHOO! Finance, YAHOO! Movies, YAHOO! Music, YAHOO! News, YAHOO! Sports, YAHOO! Weather, and YAHOO! Messenger. It further claims that Yahoo!7 offers a wide variety of services including Mail, Weather, News, Dating, Finance, Health, Entertainment and more. Yahoo!7’s television service provides Internet users a unique TV platform that includes a range of websites to support some of Australia’s favorite TV programs including: Home and Away; Grey’s Anatomy; All Saints; Sunday Night; Desperate Housewives; Packed To The Rafters; Brothers & Sisters; LOST and The Morning Show. It also offers advertising formats that allows brands to extend their reach from TV to the web. Yahoo!7 has also participated in highly publicized sporting events and features blogs by famous sporting celebrities.
SEVEN :
·
With regard to its mark ‘Seven’, the Complainant
has contended that it (Seven) offers products and services in the categories
of: television programming and broadcast; magazine publication; and online
communications. It is a recognized leader in television, news and public
affairs, and Australian-produced drama and sports programming. It produces more
Australian drama series for television than any other network. Seven is also a
leader in sports television and partners with the Australian Football League
and the fastest-growing sport in
·
It has further contended that Seven’s media
offerings have an extensive reach. Seven has grown to be the most viewed
television channel in
YAHOO!7 :
·
With regard to the mark Yahoo!7,
the Complainant has stated that Yahoo!7 has a significant presence in online
and new communications technologies and is considered to be
·
It is also the case of Complainant that in
addition to its main website, Yahoo! operates (either
directly or through its licensees and related companies) many sites using the
YAHOO! mark and YAHOO-formative trademarks and domain names, including sites
specific to particular countries, regions and/or languages such as Argentina,
Asia, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India. Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,
Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Québec, Russia,
Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the United
Kingdom and Ireland, and Vietnam. Yahoo! has offered its services for more than
a decade to Internet users in the
·
It has further been contended that while Seven’s
ventures have focused on having a dominant presence in
· With a view to reiterate Yahoo!’s holdings, the complainant in its complaint has, inter-alia, relied upon the following registrations in the European Community Trademark (“CTM”) registrations for the YAHOO! Mark :
(i) Registration No. 002003150, filed April 1, 1996 with a priority claim of January 24, 1996, issued March 5, 2002, covering entertainment including television programs in International Class 41, and goods and services in International Classes 9 (software), 14 (jewelry), 16 (paper goods), 18 (leather goods), 21 (housewares), 28 (toys), 25 (advertising services and computer services including indexing and retrieving information), 41 (education and entertainment), and 42 (online services).
(ii) Registration No. 000693127, filed on November 28, 1997 with a priority claim of May 28, 1997, issued January 22, 2001, covering goods and services in International Class 3 (cosmetics), 20 (home goods), 24 (textile), 29 (processed foods), 30 (staple foods), 35 (business management consultancy services), 36 (financial services), 38 (telecommunications services), 39 (delivery services), and 42 (online services).
(iii) Registration No. 001076181, filed on February 12, 1999 with a priority claim of 13.8.1998, issued on June 7, 2000, covering computer services and online services in International Class 42, and goods and services in International Classes 9 (software), 16 (paper goods), 35 (business management), 39 (travel services), and 41 (online contests).
· It further claimed to have numerous trademark registrations for the YAHOO! mark in the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s including the following:
(i) Registration 2,403,227, first used June 1994, filed August 13, 1998, issued November 14, 2000, covering telecommunications and online services and broadcasting services including television and video broadcasting in International Class 38, and goods and services in International Classes 9 (software), 35 (online retail and mail order services), 39 (travel reservations services), and 42 (computer services).
(ii) Registration 3,039,073, first used August 1995, filed January 21, 2004, issued January 10, 2006, covering entertainment services including providing a web site featuring multimedia materials in International Class 41.
(iii) Registration 2,040,222, first used June 1, 1994, filed January 24, 1996, issued February 25, 1997, covering goods and services in International Classes 9 (software), 16 (paper goods), 35 (advertising services), and 42 (computer services including providing online links to news, weather, sports, current events, and reference materials).
(iv) Registration 2,187,292, first used September 22, 1997, filed February 28, 1997, issued September 8, 1998, covering online computer services in International Class 35.
(v) Registration 2,040,691, first used January 2, 1996, filed April 24, 1996, issued February 25, 1997, covering online computer services including providing online links to news, weather, sports, current events, and reference materials and creating indexes of information and providing online reference materials in International Class 42.
· While relying upon the list of certain UDRP decisions, Complainant claimed that at least ninety-one (91) UDRP decisions involving Yahoo!’s marks have been issued in Yahoo!’s favor, and the Panels in at least thirty-eight (38) of these cases expressly found the YAHOO! mark to be famous and have held these domain names to be transferred to Complainant via the UDRP, e.g. yahootv.com, radioyahoo.com, yahoomovie.com, yahoomovies.com, yahoo1.com, yahoo0.com, yahoobroadcast.com, yahoo-1.com, yahoo9.com, yahoowebcam.com, yahoomusic.com, musicayahoo.com, sbcyah00.com, sbcyahoobrowser.com, youtube-yahoo.com.
· Complainant has claimed that its trademark rights in the mark YAHOO! and variations thereof predate and prior to Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
In response to the complaint,
the respondent has submitted the following : -
·
It has
been contended by the Respondent that Yahoo declined to inform him where such
information was obtained from. He had complained that under UK Data Protection
Act laws his privacy has been breached by the
·
Yahoo
Inc had at that time not followed proper legal or procedure as ICANN stipulate
and as such Yahoo tried to reverse such by doing so through correct and legal
channels before Yahoo applied to the ADR, the personal information, Yahoo
had already obtained by such sources as it so refuses to name, while also
disallowing the Respondent to renew his domain even with the current registrar
by blocking such, indicating Respondent’s intention to transfer yahoo7.tv. Respondent
states that Yahoo has given unjustifiable and complete defamatory lies, whilst
providing absolutely no proof of such "intended" activities.
·
Respondent
states that considering the pending legal action that may well be taken against
him by Yahoo/Seven Media Group, respondent has the right to have the breach of his
security via UK Data Protection Act 1984 including amendments 1998 &
European Directive 95/46/EC, to be investigated fully by UK Information
Commissioner $B!G (Bs Office and then following the outcome have the
entitlement in a UK court against either/or/all the three parties named above
for full costs of any legal action taken by Y/SMG against respondent in defence
of his good name to be financially covered.
·
Respondent
has further stated that previously when hosted by channelme.tv servers until 1
July 2009 he had himself manually linked through to youtube.com a embedded
promotional video of Channel 9 Australia's worldwide acclaimed & famous
"Underbelly" programme on the main page of yahoo7.tv of which Yahoo
Inc USA or Seven Media Group AU held no interest what so ever, nor any other
materiel on yahoo7.tv Seven Media Group etc could claim copyright.
·
Respondent
has averred that simply DNS settings pointed his existing tv name to his new
Magnify channel as per the link above to the FAQ of the changes, auto selection
was chosen and Magnify automatically added video to respondent’s Magnify
site. In this regard, he has drawn the attention to the right hand
side of the website www.channelme.tv.
·
He has further
averred that he had due to personal health reasons and massively
reduced usage of what the channelme.tv template had offered him, had very
little interest in maintaining yahoo7.tv when Magnify were asking for a
vast amount of payment for services respondent had already paid for to
channelme.tv, in no uncertain terms via telephone to Magnify was he to be
upgraded for the remaining 6 months of my channel.tv subscription to FULL
Magnify status as only 12 month subscriptions were available and he could not
qualify for such without FULL payment - he declined to accept such an
"offer".
·
Respondent
stated that Magnify chose automatically which video to be embed to yahoo7.tv Respondent
further states that he assumed based on its technology, and perhaps based on
the same or similar technologies many search engines use, yahoo7.tv no doubt
would have chosen to be embedded youtube, google video etc, etc. footage based
on AU television - terrestrial, pay tv or otherwise, automatically.
·
Respondent
further alleged that Yahoo has misrepresented to ADR by informing them that he used its trademark
name or logo are completely unfounded, channelme.tv the service respondent
signed for per the T&C of channelme.tv did not have advertising on
yahoo7.tv, such changes and further outcome of these changes were and still are
outside respondent’s control or remit and have been since 1/7/2009.
·
Respondent
further stated that given the fact that he had refused to pay Magnify 12 months
subscription he had the legal rights to 6 months FULL Magnify service as per
the contract and the T&C agreed between the respondent and channelme.tv
prior to the merger of both services Magnify had proceeded to use yahoo7.tv for
advertising, Magnify, Enom and/or Verisign and may have gained profit from such
actions or its advertising &/or marketing companies/partners, direct, third
party or otherwise. In no uncertain terms did he (respondent) received
payment/s.
·
Respondent
categorically stated that he had never received any payment of any currency,
discount or gifts of any kind from advertising revenue on or from yahoo7.tv,
domainrush, Enom or Verisign or any of those aforementioned subsidiary
companies or partners.
·
Respondent
contends that he received completely 6 months service for a 12 month term for
yahoo7.tv which was in itself a loss to myself
financially & also having lost the channelme.tv template &
facilities to PAY facilities he refused to use or access given a breach of
T&C surrounding the Magnify/Channelme.tv merger.
·
Respondent
further contended that considering the fact that Complainant Yahoo was able to
obtain respondent’s personal details in Feb/March of 2009 he has no doubt that Yahoo
was certainly able to validate that respondent was in no way profiting
from yahoo7.tv from the referred companies and by insinuating respondent
was "trading on his goodwill, name and trademarks" as so near
described by Yahoo to ADR, all the while withholding such information to ADR
and thus DEFAMING his good character.
·
Yahoo's
interest seems to be applied of late to the fact given the Yahoo/SMG joint
venture in 2006, neither party showed interest in yahoo7.tv from mid 2006 until
2009. When Yahoo/SMG AU had planned to launch a second free to air tv channel in AU - 7two, thus Yahoo again have not mentioned
this to ADR.
·
Respondent
has stated that assuming Y/SMG’s use of yahoo7.tv would be a online branch
portal for both its channel 7 & 7 two operations with SMG AU officially
releasing such 7 two information into the public domain in late October 2009
with a launch date of early November 2009, it is highly unrealistic to assume that
the respondent had registered yahoo7.tv through any profiteering agenda in
January 2009 some two and a half years later where Yahoo or SMG showed no
interest in yahoo7.tv in the said period.
·
Respondent
stated that it is his belief that the "yahoo" trademark/s as Yahoo
Inc and its subsidiary companies have belief they own is not so. Respondent
alleges that disclosure in his defence of such information would harm any legal
action against him, he has been advised by his legal counsel to not to disclose
such legal details to ADR and put him at the disadvantage of Yahoo Inc in any
legal actions SMG may take against the respondent now or in future, should
either Australian Seven Media Group/Yahoo!7 Pty
Limited so wish to do so.
·
Respondent
contended that considering that he is a disabled individual whom in nature
& finance has no business agenda and no malice towards the yahoo7
"brand" and look for no gain other than to discuss yahoo7
through the internet on yahoo7.tv with other consumers no
disrepute on his part whatsoever towards Yahoo or channel 7 AU, such
actions as Yahoo Inc knowingly such seek to lie and deceive the ADR on the
representation Yahoo Inc have forwarded to the complainant, including not
following correct procedures internal to the ADR and external in seeking
as Yahoo falsely describes as "remedy" based on misleading lies,
while defaming the respondent.
·
Given
the legal complexities' of this case and the ICANN changes to embrace
international input rather than solely US law and policy as set in stone, the
respondent asks ADR for fairness and impartiality with regards to ADR &
Yahoo Inc both residing organisations in the United States of America and has contended
dismissal of the complaint of YAHOO on all such grounds and further that ADR
should direct Seven Media Group AU take appropriate action as it deems
necessary within law for the impartiality that law represents - the
Commonwealth Law of Australia for resolution within the guidelines of
Australian law where Seven Media Group as a company is registered. He has submitted that there should be
complete impartiality and he does not wish to undermine the ICANN or ADR
process in the slightest.
·
Respondent
contends that it has only used the disputed domain name to communicate with
other consumers about Complainant’s online broadcasting services.
·
Respondent
contends that it has never gained commercially in any way from its use of the disputed
domain name, and that it merely used the disputed domain name to discuss
Complainant’s services with other consumers.
FINDINGS
·
The
Panel finds that the use of the domain name “yahoo7.tv” by the
Respondent is in bad faith and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in relation to the domain name.
·
The
Panel also finds that the domain name yahoo7.tv deserve to be transferred to the Complainant and the Respondent
is not entitled to use this domain name. The Complaint deserves to be allowed
forthwith and the Panel decides accordingly. However, in terms of the ICANN
Policy and the requirements thereunder, the formal observations / findings of
the Panel are as under.
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.
·
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the
YAHOO! mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,403,227 issued
November 14, 2000) and the European Union Office for Harmonization of the
Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 2,003,150 issued March 5, 2002). The Panel reiterates the findings of this
Forum in - (i) Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s federal
trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were
adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i)); and (ii) Morgan Stanley v. Fitz-James,
FA 571918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2005) (finding from a preponderance of the
evidence that the complainant had registered its mark with national trademark
authorities, the Panel determined that “such registrations present a prima facie case of Complainant’s rights
in the mark for purposes of Policy 4(a)(i).”).
·
In its Complaint, Complainant contends that Respondent’s <yahoo7.tv> domain name is confusingly similar to its YAHOO! mark.
The <yahoo7.tv> domain name differs from
Complainant’s mark in three ways: (1) the exclamation point has been removed
from the mark; (2) the numeral “7” has been added to the end of the mark; and
(3) the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.tv” has been added to the end
of the mark. The Panel may find that
even if an exclamation mark is removed from a mark, the resulting domain name
is still confusingly similar to the mark, because no domain name can contain
this punctuation mark. In this regard,
decision of this Forum in Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown
Promotions, FA 94321 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in
determining the similarity of a domain name and mark) is relevant. The Panel may also find that adding a numeral
does not distinguish a domain name from that mark. This Forum in Am. Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Mar. 24, 2000) has given a finding that the respondent’s domain name
<go2AOL.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark. In
addition, the Panel may find that adding a ccTLD to a mark also fails to
sufficiently distinguish a domain name from that mark, because every domain
name must include a top-level domain. The Panel relies upon the decision of
WIPO in World Wrestling Fed'n Entm't, Inc. v. Rapuano, DTV2001-0010 (WIPO May 23, 2001)
(“The addition of the country code top
level domain (ccTLD) designation <.tv> does not serve to distinguish [the
disputed domain] names from the complainant’s marks since ‘.tv’ is a common
Internet address identifier that is not specifically associated with
Respondent.”). Therefore, the Panel
finds that these changes to the YAHOO! mark
do not minimize or eliminate the resulting likelihood of confusion, and hence the
Panel finds that Respondent’s <yahoo7.tv> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i).
·
The
Panel is reminded that 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. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case. The Panel relies upon
the decisions of this Forum in – (i) Swedish
Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA
873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by
the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy
4(c)); (ii) 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.”).
·
Complainant
contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <yahoo7.tv> domain name
nor has it ever been the owner or licensee of the YAHOO! mark. Respondent has been
identified as “Jamie Drummond,” and
nothing in the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name lists Respondent as
any variant on the YAHOO! mark. The Panel finds that
Respondent is not commonly known by the <yahoo7.tv> domain name pursuant
to Policy 4(c)(ii).
The Panel finds strength in the decisions of this Forum in – (i) Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the
respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as
there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly
known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the
complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s
use of its mark in a domain name); and (ii) St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21,
2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a
disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that
the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
·
Complainant also contends that Respondent is using
the <yahoo7.tv> domain name to bring Internet users to its
website that offers online broadcasting services, which compete with
Complainant’s own services. The website that resolves from the disputed domain
name also contains links to other competitors of Complainant. Because
Respondent is attracting Internet users to online broadcasting services which
compete with Complainant for customers, the
Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <yahoo7.tv> domain name
is neither a bona fide offering of
goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use under Policy 4(c)(iii). To arrive at the above decision, the Panel has
relied upon the decisions of this Forum in - (i) Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw.
Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003)
(“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking
Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit
is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
under Policy 4(c)(iii).”); and (ii) St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (holding that using an
identical or confusingly similar domain name to earn click-through fees via
sponsored links to a complainant’s competitors does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services
under Policy 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy
4(c)(iii)).
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy,
the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED in favour of the Complainant.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <yahoo7.tv>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Maninder Singh, Panelist
Dated: January 25, 2010
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum