Mark Lovinger v. Random Technologies LLC
Claim Number: FA1009001345194
Complainant is Mark Lovinger (“Complainant”), represented by Gary J. Nelson, of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Random Technologies LLC (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <discounthydroponics.net>, registered with BACKUP.CA CORPORATION.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 7, 2010.
On September 8, 2010, BACKUP.CA CORPORATION confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <discounthydroponics.net> domain name is registered with BACKUP.CA CORPORATION and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BACKUP.CA CORPORATION has verified that Respondent is bound by the BACKUP.CA CORPORATION 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 September 10, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 30, 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@discounthydroponics.net by e-mail. Also on September 10, 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 October 20, 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 (the "Rules") "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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
Mark Lovinger (“Complainant”) has been doing business under the trade name and mark DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS for over a decade to identify his highly successful agricultural supply company. The subject domain name is identical to Complainant’s DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark. Respondent is a cybersquatter who uses the subject domain names to intentionally attract Internet users who are attempting to locate Complainant to Respondent’s web page that hosts commercial advertisements for Complainant’s competitors and affiliate links to sites where visitors can purchase the same goods sold under Complainant’s mark. It is beyond dispute that Respondent is engaged in cybersquatting and has violated the policy.
A. Complainant’s Rights in its DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS Mark
Complainant’s business is the largest mail-order and Internet retailer of hydroponic gardening supplies in the United States. Founded in 1999, Complainant’s business is extremely well known in the agricultural retail field. Over the last decade the DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS has become synonymous with high quality well priced hydroponics agricultural supplies.
Complainant owns a United States trademark registration on the principal register for its DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark, reciting October 1, 1999 as the date of first use. Since 1999, Complainant has continuously and exclusively used the DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark in the United States and in many countries around the world, long before Respondent unlawfully registered the contested domain name. Further, Complainant’s trademark registration issued on August 18, 2009, before Respondent registered the contested domain name.
B. The Subject Domain Name is Identical to Complainant’s DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS Mark
To support a finding that the subject domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, all that is required is:
that the domain name misappropriate sufficient textual components from the mark such that an ordinary Internet user who is familiar with the goods or services distributed under the mark would upon seeing the domain name likely think that owing to the visual and/or phonetic similarity between the mark and the domain name that an affiliation exists between the site identified by that domain name and the owner or licensed user of the mark.
Awesome Kids LLC v. Selavy Comm., D2001-0210 (WIPO Apr. 16, 2001); see also Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F.Supp. 282, 296 (D.N.J.), aff’d, 159 F.3d 1351 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding JEWS FOR JESUS and jewsforjesus.org confusingly similar).
The domain name discounthydroponics.net is identical to the DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark. The domain name misappropriates sufficient textual components from Complainant’s DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark such that ordinary Internet users familiar with Complainant’s goods and services are likely to think that, owing to the visual and phonetic similarities between the domain names and Complainant’s marks, an affiliation exists between the domain names and Complainant.
It is well settled that the removal of spaces between the words of a mark and the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) name .com or .net cannot “sufficiently distinguish a domain name from the mark it incorporates, because no domain name can contain spaces, and every domain name must include a top-level domain.” Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. The Lion King a/k/a NULL NULL, FA 1266261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jul. 24, 2009); see also SCOLA v. Wick, FA 1115109 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2008) (concluding that “the domain name at issue is identical to [the] complainant’s SCOLA mark, as the only alteration to the mark is the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.”); see also Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Ain. v. Bucci, 42 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 834 (1998) (finding plaintiffs PLANNED PARENTHOOD mark and defendant's <plannedparenthood.com> domain name nearly identical); Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Ohno, FA 511463 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2005) (holding that the <reebok.net> domain name was identical to the complainant’s REEBOK mark because it fully incorporates the mark and merely adds a generic top-level domain).
Just as in the above-referenced cases, the domain name discounthydroponics.net is identical to the DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark. The domain name misappropriates sufficient textual components from Complainant’s DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark such that ordinary Internet users familiar with Complainant’s goods and services are likely to think that, owing to the visual and phonetic similarities between the domain names and Complainant’s marks, an affiliation exists between the domain names and Complainant. Accordingly, a finding that the subject domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademark and trade name is supported by both applicable case law and prior administrative proceedings.
C. Respondent Has Registered and is Using the Contested Domain Name in Bad Faith
In the present case, Respondent registered the domain name discounthydroponics.net which is identical to Complainant’s DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark on January 26, 2010, long after Complainant had established his rights in the mark and secured a federal registration. Respondent is using the contested domain name to provide a page featuring pay-per-click advertisements for Complainant’s competitors as well as affiliate program links to third-party sites selling the same type of goods Complainant sells under its mark. When visitors click these affiliate program links and purchase goods, Respondent receives a referral commission.
The Policy expressly details specific circumstances which, “if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.” Policy ¶4(b). Any one of these express circumstances will suffice to establish bad faith.
One circumstance applicable here is detailed in Policy ¶4(b)(iv), which states that
by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
In the instant case, Respondent’s parking page and affiliate links establish this circumstance.
Use of a contested domain name to provide a webpage that contains pay-per-click advertisements for a complainant’s competitors supports a finding of bad faith 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 Asbury Auto. Group, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 958542 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant’s business would likely lead to confusion among Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships, and was therefore evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv)); University of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”). Just as in Allianz of Am. Corp., Asbury Auto. Group, Inc, and University of Houston Sys., Respondent’s registration and use of discounthydroponics.net to provide a page of pay-per-click advertisements for Complainant’s competitors supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
Use of a contested domain name to provide a webpage that contains links to other providers of similar goods through an affiliate program supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Juga Fish, FA 1326155, (Nat. Arb. Forum Jul. 12, 2010) (finding the respondent’s use of the contested domain name to participate in an affiliate program and divert complainant’s customers to a site where competing products were available from another source showed bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv)); see also Cabela's, Inc. v. Domains Administrator c/o Secure Hosts, FA 1325758 (Nat. Arb Forum Jun. 25, 2010) (holding use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users and then to redirect them through that disputed domain name to Complainant’s own site in order to earn the affiliate fee showed bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv)); see also ports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Internet Hosting, FA 124516 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (“Redirecting Internet users attempting to reach a complainant’s website in order to gain a profit off of a complainant is one example of bad faith use and registration under the Policy.”); see also Cricket Commc’ns, Inc. v. Oliver, FA 954005 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent registered domain names containing the complainant’s mark after enrolling in the complainant’s affiliate program).
Accordingly, the panel should finding that the subject domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
D. Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interest in the
Contested
Domain Name
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain name. Respondent bears the burden of proving that it has rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain names pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002); Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).
Respondent is not known individually, or as a business, or in any other manner by Discount Hydroponics or discounthydroponics.net. Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use its DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark, nor does Respondent have any legal relationship with Complainant that would entitle it to use Complainant’s mark. Respondent has no legitimate reason for using its domain name. Accordingly, Respondent cannot establish rights to and legitimate interest in the domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Respondent is not using the contested domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.” Policy ¶4(c)(i). As discussed above, Respondent has used the domain name to compete with Complainant by featuring links to competitors of Complainant, thereby misdirecting consumers attempting to access Complainant’s website and online store to competitors’ websites. Use of a domain name confusingly similar to another’s trademark to provide a website offering goods or services in direct competition with the trademark owner cannot support a legitimate interest. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i)); see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or whether the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Juga Fish, FA 1326155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jul. 12, 2010) (finding that respondent’s use of the contested domain name for profit as part of an affiliate program is not a bona fide offering of goods or services according to Policy ¶4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)). Accordingly, Respondent cannot establish rights to and legitimate interest in the domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(i).
Respondent is not making a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain.” Policy ¶4(c)(iii). Use of a domain name to host pay-per-click advertisements and affiliate links to competing websites is clearly commercial. Accordingly, Respondent cannot establish rights to and legitimate interest in the domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
In view of Complainant’s distinctive marks, this commercial use by Respondent violates Complainant’s rights under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Respondent’s use of the subject name is “on or in connection with any goods or services,” and Respondent “uses in commerce any word, term, [or] name ... , or any combination thereof ... , which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person.” Lanham Act §43, 15 U.S.C. §1125; see Household International, Inc. v. Cyntom Enterprises, FA 95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2000), (finding that use of someone else’s well-known business name undermines any claims to a legitimate interest). Moreover, it is well settled law that misdirecting Internet traffic by using another party’s trademark is unlawful. Brookfield Communs., Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, under the laws of the United States and the decisions of prior administrative proceedings, Respondent cannot show any rights to or legitimate interest in the contested domain name.
As Complainant has satisfied all three elements of the Policy, it requests the panel grant the requested remedy.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant Mark Lovinger owns rights to use his DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark in connection with his mail-order and Internet retail agricultural business of hydroponic gardening supplies, and has been doing so since 1999. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for his DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,669,056 issued August 18, 2009).
Respondent Random Technologies LLC registered the <discounthydroponics.net> domain name on January 26, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which features links to Complainant’s competitors, as well as links to third-party websites, which offer products similar to complainant’s for sale.
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.
Complainant contends he has rights in the DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark. The Panel finds trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office are sufficient to establish rights in a mark. 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 Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights under Policy ¶4(a)(i) in the DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark through Complainant’s registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,669,056 issued August 18, 2009).
Complainant contends Respondent’s <discounthydroponics.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s entire DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark, removes the space between the two words, and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net.” Previous panels have found merely removing a space from words and adding a gTLD render the disputed domain name identical to a complainant’s mark because spaces are impermissible in a domain name and a gTLD is a required element of every domain name. See Nike, Inc. v. Coleman, D2000-1120 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that the domain name <nike.net> is identical to the complainant’s famous NIKE mark); see also Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”). This Panel agrees. Therefore, this Panel concludes Respondent’s <discounthydroponics.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant alleges Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <discounthydroponics.net> domain name. Previous panels have found when a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove they do have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Complainant makes a prima facie case. Because Respondent failed to respond, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <discounthydroponics.net> 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 Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nevertheless, this Panel will examine the record to determine whether or not the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶4(c).
The evidence strongly suggests Respondent is NOT commonly known by the DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark. The WHOIS information identifies the domain name registrant as “Random Technologies LLC.” Complainant asserts Respondent is not authorized to use the DISCOUNT HYDROPONICS mark. When there is nothing in the record, including the WHOIS information, or any evidence set forth to show Respondent is commonly known by a complainant’s mark, this Panel will (and does) find Respondent has not established any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to 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).
Respondent uses the <discounthydroponics.net> domain name to resolve to a website offering pay-per-click links to third party competitors of Complainant. Because Respondent likely profits from the use of these links, the Panel finds the use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See 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)); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not 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)).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Respondent uses the <discounthydroponics.net> domain name to compete with Complainant by displaying links on his site that redirect Internet users to sites of Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds this competing use constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business pursuant to 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).”).
Respondent uses the <discounthydroponics.net> domain name to direct Internet users to a site which offers links to Complainant’s competitors. Internet users are likely confused by the identical nature of Respondent’s domain name to Complainant’s mark. Respondent likely uses such confusion for his own commercial gain. The Panel finds the registration of a domain name in an attempt to commercially gain from the confusion between a complainant’s mark and a respondent’s disputed domain is in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Maricopa Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. College.com, LLC, FA 536190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2005) (“The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to a competing website. Because Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s PHOENIX COLLEGE mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, Respondent’s use of the <phoenixcollege.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <discounthydroponics.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: October 24, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum