national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

United Services Automobile Association v. Transure Enterprise Ltd c/o Host Master

Claim Number: FA1005001326392

 

PARTIES

Complainant is United Services Automobile Association (“Complainant”), represented by Manuel Rivera, Texas, USA.  Respondent is Transure Enterprise Ltd c/o Host Master (“Respondent”), Virgin Islands (British).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <usaarewards.com>, registered with ABOVE.COM PTY LTD.

 

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.

 

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 25, 2010.

 

On May 25, 2010, ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <usaarewards.com> domain name is registered with ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. has verified that Respondent is bound by the ABOVE.COM PTY LTD. 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 May 27, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 16, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@usaarewards.com by e-mail.  Also on May 27, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On June 22, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1.  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

            i.          United Services Automobile Association and its Services and Products

           

            United Services Automobile Association, hereinafter referred to as “Complainant” or “USAA”, was founded in 1922 in San Antonio, Texas by 25 officers in the U.S. Army who banded together to insure each other’s Model-T Fords.  Since that time, USAA has grown into a Fortune 200 financial services company that has approximately 7,500,000 members.  USAA continues to be headquartered in Texas, and employs approximately 22,000 employees.

           

            USAA offers a wide array of services and products to its members, all of whom have or have had a direct or familial connection to the United States Armed Forces and over half of whom have served in the military.  USAA’s members are located throughout the United States and overseas.

 

            USAA offers a variety of services and products to its members.  USAA primarily offers financial services (such as banking, credit card, brokerage, and financial planning) and insurance services (including annuities, automobile, homeowner, whole life and term life, renters, and personal property insurance).  USAA’s banking services and credit card services are offered through its subsidiary USAA Federal Savings Bank.

 

            USAA owns the trademark and trade name USAA, and its rights in the USAA mark and name date back to at least as early as 1927.

 

            USAA has achieved considerable commercial success under the USAA mark and name.  For example, USAA has approximately over $96,100,000,000 in owned and managed assets.

 

            Since its adoption of the USAA name and trademark in 1927, USAA has spent many millions of dollars advertising, marketing, and promoting its USAA branded products and  services through a variety of national media, including, billboard, the Internet, direct mail, and print advertisements.

 

            USAA has won numerous awards as a company and as an employer.  For example, USAA has received the highest possible financial strength ratings from Standard & Poor’s, A.M. Best, and Moody’s.  USAA has also received customer satisfaction awards from J.D. Power and Associates in recognition of USAA’s performance in the insurance and financial services fields, and it consistently receives the highest ratings on J.D. Power Consumer Center’s surveys.  In addition, USAA was ranked first by BusinessWeek in its list of “Customer Service Champs” in 2007.  In recognition of USAA’s quality as an employer, USAA was named on Working Mother’s list of “100 Best Companies for Working Mothers” eight times between 1996 and 2005, and was named on Computerworld’s “100 Best Places to Work in IT” six times between 1999 and 2005.  USAA was also named on Latina Style’s list of 50 best employers for Hispanic women in 2001 through 2005.  In addition, USAA currently ranks 5^th on G.I. Jobs “Top 25 Most Military Friendly Employers.”

 

            USAA promotes its products and services under the USAA mark on the Internet, and has used its USAA.COM website as a worldwide information and distribution channel for its business for many years. 

 

            Having been widely promoted among members of the U.S. military since at least as early as 1927, USAA’s mark and name USAA symbolize the significant goodwill associated with USAA, and are property rights of incalculable value.

 

ii.                   Complainant’s Trademark Holdings

 

            USAA has continuously used USAA as a trade name, trademark, and service mark since 1927.

 

            In addition to its common law rights, USAA owns numerous registrations for the USAA mark and variations thereof, including the following U.S. registrations:

 

a.       Registration No. 1,712,134 for the mark USAA (block letters), first used May 15, 1927, filed November 1, 1991, issued September 1, 1992, covering services in International Class 36 (banking, financial, and insurance services), 35 (discount buying agency services), 39 (automobile leasing and travel agency services), and 42 (nursing home and health care services).

b.      Registration No. 1,590,157 for the mark USAA and Design, first used December 31, 1983, filed July 17, 1989, issued April 3, 1990, covering services in International Class 36 (banking and credit card services).

c.       Registration No. 2,319,728 for the mark USAA and Design, first used March 3, 1999, filed October 22, 1997, issued February 15, 2000, covering services in International Class 36 (online banking services).

d.      Registration No. 2,355,486 for the mark USAA.COM, first used May 1, 1999, filed February 20, 1996, issued June 6, 2000, covering services in International Class 35 (online discount buying service), 36 (online banking and insurance services), and 42 (computerized online ordering service).

            USAA also owns and extensively uses the domain name USAA.COM, which it registered on December 2, 1994.

           

            USAA’s trademark rights in its USAA mark and name, based on its trademark registrations and its common law rights acquired through use since 1927, long predate Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name usaarewards.com.

 

 

                        iii.         Respondent’s Infringing Activities and Bad-Faith Acts

 

            Respondent registered the Domain Name long after Complainant began using its USAA mark, after Complainant registered its mark in the U.S. (and elsewhere), and after Complainant’s USAA mark became famous.

Respondent uses the Domain Name for a commercial pay-per-click website displaying search categories relating to Complainant’s business (e.g., “My Points”, “Rewards“, “Credit Card”, etc.) that connect to web pages featuring sponsored-link advertisements to directly competing websites and other commercial websites.  Respondent’s website is provided by Sedo’s Domain Parking service, as shown by the originating URLs on the pages.  Respondent undoubtedly receives “click-through” commissions when Internet users click on the sponsored-link advertisements provided on its website. 

 

FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS

 

This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds[1]:

 

            The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark

The Domain Name usaarewards.com is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s fanciful and strong[2] USAA Marks, in particular the mark USAA.COM.  The Domain Name incorporates exactly Complainant’s mark USAA and tacks on the generic term “rewards”; this is also used and highly likely to be associated with USAA and its rewards and/or financial   services.  The presence of a generic top level domain (e.g., “.com”) is irrelevant in a UDRP ¶4(a)(i) analysis.[3]

 

            Indeed, the addition of the generic term “rewards” to Complainant’s USAA mark in the Domain Name indicates that the Domain Name relates to Complainant’s business by referring to Complainant’s rewards and/or financial services offered under the USAA mark and to Complainant’s subsidiary USAA Federal Savings Bank.  UDRP Panels have consistently held that the addition of a generic or descriptive term relating to the complainant’s business is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the complainant’s mark, and many UDRP Panels have held that such domain names actually increase the likelihood of confusion and association between the domain name holder and the trademark owner.  See, e.g., Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corporation v. Selavy Media (NAF FA0608000781838) (finding the domain name <toshibatoner.com> confusingly similar to complainant’s TOSHIBA mark because “the mere addition of a term describing an aspect of complainant’s business, namely printers and related accessories, is not a distinguishing difference.”); Bridgestone Corporation v. Horoshiy (WIPO D2004-0795) (finding the domain name <bridgestonegolf.com> confusingly similar to complainant’s BRIDGESTONE mark and holding the conjunction of complainant’s mark with the non-distinctive term “golf” increases “the likelihood of confusion, since [c]omplainant actually uses the subject mark in connection with golf, and has done so for quite some time.”)

 

            Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interest in the Domain

 

            Respondent clearly has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name for the following reasons.

 

            First, Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name for a commercial pay-per-click website featuring sponsored-link advertisements for directly competing websites and other commercial websites does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name under the UDRP.  See, e.g., Verizon Trademark Services v. NA a/k/a NA DomainDevelopments.com (NAF FA0512000616307) (respondent’s use of the domain name <verizoncenter.com> for a website featuring links to competing services and products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); IndyMac Bank v. Yu Xiao (NAF FA0511000603023) (respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a website featuring links to various competing and non-competing commercial websites, for which respondent presumably receives referral fees, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the UDRP). Caterpillar v. Admin c/o Jucco Holdings (NAF FA0603000662210) (respondent’s use of the domain name <catatwork.com> for a website featuring links for which respondent receives click-through fees is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

            Second, Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by USAA REWARDS or the Domain Name.  Nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information or the record demonstrates that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its USAA mark.  See, e.g., Yahoo! v. Zheng (NAF FA0802001142567) (respondent has no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Section 4(c)(ii) because there is no evidence in the record or WHOIS information indicating respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and because complainant did not authorize respondent to use its YAHOO! mark).

 

            Respondent’s Bad Faith Under Section 4(b) of the UDRP 

 

            Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name squarely meets the grounds of bad faith outlined in the UDRP, as well as additional grounds of bad faith defined in previous UDRP decisions.

 

            First, Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitute bad faith under Section 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.  Respondent uses the Domain Name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its registered USAA mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and/or endorsement of Respondent’s website.  See, e.g., Capital One v. LaPorte Holdings (NAF FA0502000417712) (respondent’s use of the disputed CAPITAL ONE-formative domain names for pay-per-click websites constitutes bad faith and holding “[r]espondent is profiting from the unauthorized use of [c]omplainant’s registered mark in its domain names.  Such infringement is what the Policy was intended to remedy and is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”); IndyMac Bank v. Unasi (NAF FA0507000514785) (respondent’s use of the disputed domain names for various commercial websites using a series of hyperlinks for which respondent presumably receives referral fees constitutes bad faith); DoAll Company v. Titan Net (NAF FA0509000563640) (holding respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a website for which respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to a variety of commercial websites constitutes bad faith).

 

            Second, Respondent’s activities constitute bad faith under Section 4(b)(iii) of the UDRP because its use of the Domain Name for a website featuring sponsored-link advertisements for directly competing websites disrupts Complainant’s business.  See, e.g., DaimlerChrysler v. Kentech (NAF FA0501000410056) (respondent’s use of the domain name for websites displaying links to complainant’s competitors constitutes bad faith); TM Acquisition v. Lam (NAF FA0405000280499) (respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a commercial web directory website linking users to competing services constitutes bad faith under Section 4(b)(iii)).

 

            Because Complainant’s USAA mark is registered, and because Respondent’s website displays search categories relating to Complainant’s business and features links to directly competing websites, there is no question that Respondent had knowledge of USAA’s trademark rights when it registered the Domain Name.  By registering the Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its USAA mark, Respondent acted in bad faith.  See, e.g., MC Enterprises v. Mark Segal (Namegiant.com) (WIPO D2005-1270) (respondent’s registration of the domain name <mcenterprises.com> constitute bad faith because it is a “reasonable inference” that respondent knew of complainant and its rights in MC ENTERPRISES because “A search would have revealed the [c]omplainant and its activities.  The subject domain name is the name of the [c]omplainant. That is, it is not simply a word or combination of words.”); IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v. Jason U Carpenter d/b/a Jason U Internet Inc (NAF FA0505000474818) (respondent’s registration of the domain names constitutes bad faith because he had knowledge of complainant’s marks as shown by respondent’s pay-per-click website relating to complainant’s business);  Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corporation v. Marko Tusla d/b/a Toshiba-Club.com (WIPO D2004-1066) (“Registration of a domain name with knowledge of the trademark owner’s rights has been consistently found to constitute bad faith under the Policy.”)

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, United Services Automobile Association, was founded in 1922 as an insurance company by twenty-five officers in the United States Army.  Today Complainant offers a wide array of services and products to its members in the financial service and insurance industries.  Complainant owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its USAA mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,590,157 issued April 3, 1990). 

 

Respondent registered the <usaarewards.com> domain name on December 4, 2008.  Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays various third-party hyperlinks to businesses and services in competition with Complainant in the financial services and insurance industries. 

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of 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."

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)               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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The Panel finds Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to establish rights in its USAA mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i) through its multiple trademark registrations with the USPTO.  See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶4(a)(i).”); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).

Complainant argues the disputed domain name contains its mark in its entirety while adding the generic term “rewards” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” and that such changes to its mark are not sufficient to render the <usaarewards.com> domain name distinct from Complainant’s mark.  The Panel notes Complainant sponsors several credit cards which offer rewards programs.  The Panel agrees with Complainant’s contentions and finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).  See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2005) (finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis).

            The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant claims Respondent does not have any rights and legitimate interests in the <usaarewards.com> domain name.  Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations.  Once the Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”).  The Panel finds Complainant has produced a prima facie case.  Due to the Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <usaarewards.com> domain name.  See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond).  Nevertheless, the Panel will review the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c).

 

Complainant claims Respondent is not commonly know by the disputed domain name because nothing in the WHOIS information indicates Respondent is commonly know by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark or name in any way.  The WHOIS information does not indicate whether Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Respondent offers no evidence to refute Complainant’s claims.  Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <usaarewards.com> domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).  See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Complainant contends Respondent is using the <usaarewards.com> domain name to operate a commercial pay-per-click website that features sponsored-link advertisements for competing websites and businesses, and that such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  The Panel agrees and finds Respondent lacks rights and interests in the disputed domain name where it is not using the disputed domain as 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).  See Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel services that competed with the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not using a disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by redirecting Internet users to a commercial search engine website with links to multiple websites that may be of interest to the complainant’s customers and presumably earning “click-through fees” in the process).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant claims Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent is redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant’s products and services to those of Complainant’s competitors.  Complainant argues such use creates a disruption in Complainant’s insurance and financial services businesses.  The Panel finds Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users who are seeking Complainant’s products and services to those of Complainant’s competitors, and that Respondent’s use is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iii).  See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii)); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii).”).

 

Complainant also argues Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for financial gain through the use of click-through links, and this use is further evidence of bad faith registration and use.  Complainant argues Respondent receives click-through fees in conjuction with the sponsored links that Respondent displays on its website.  The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to profit from the confusing similarity between Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).  See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.

 

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 <usaarewards.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist

Dated: Thursday, July 6, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum