Moroccanoil, Inc., Moroccanoil Israel Ltd, 3903150 Canada Inc., d/b/a Moroccanoil, & Ofer Tal v. Rafael Alter
Claim Number: FA1010001355353
Complainant is Moroccanoil, Inc., Moroccanoil Israel Ltd, 3903150 Canada Inc., d/b/a Moroccanoil & Ofer Tal (“Complainant”), represented by Kevin R. Keegan of Conkle, Kremer & Engel, California, USA. Respondent is Rafael Alter (“Respondent”), Ontario, Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <originalmoroccanoil.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.net>, <moroccanoilmiracle.org>, <moroccanoilmiracle.info>, <moroccanoilsecrets.net>, <moroccanoilsecrets.com>, <moroccanoilsecrets.org>, <moroccanoilsecrets.info>, <moroccanoiltherapy.com>, <moroccanoiltherapy.net>, <moroccanoiltherapy.org>, <moroccanoiltherapy.info>, <moroccanoiltreatment.com>, <moroccanoiltreatment.net>, <moroccanoiltreatment.org>, <moroccanoiltreatment.info>, <moroccanarganoil.org>, <moroccanarganoil.net>, and <moroccanarganoil.info>, registered with Moniker Online Services LLC.
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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 28, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 28, 2010.
On October 29, 2010, Moniker Online Services LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <originalmoroccanoil.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.net>, <moroccanoilmiracle.org>, <moroccanoilmiracle.info>, <moroccanoilsecrets.net>, <moroccanoilsecrets.com>, <moroccanoilsecrets.org>, <moroccanoilsecrets.info>, <moroccanoiltherapy.com>, <moroccanoiltherapy.net>, <moroccanoiltherapy.org>, <moroccanoiltherapy.info>, <moroccanoiltreatment.com>, <moroccanoiltreatment.net>, <moroccanoiltreatment.org>, <moroccanoiltreatment.info>, <moroccanarganoil.org>, <moroccanarganoil.net>, and <moroccanarganoil.info> domain names are registered with Moniker Online Services LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Moniker Online Services LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 5, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 26, 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@originalmoroccanoil.com, postmaster@moroccanoilmiracle.com, postmaster@moroccanoilmiracle.net, postmaster@moroccanoilmiracle.org, postmaster@moroccanoilmiracle.info, postmaster@moroccanoilsecrets.net, postmaster@moroccanoilsecrets.com, postmaster@moroccanoilsecrets.org, postmaster@moroccanoilsecrets.info, postmaster@moroccanoiltherapy.com, postmaster@moroccanoiltherapy.net, postmaster@moroccanoiltherapy.org, postmaster@moroccanoiltherapy.info, postmaster@moroccanoiltreatment.com, postmaster@moroccanoiltreatment.net, postmaster@moroccanoiltreatment.org, postmaster@moroccanoiltreatment.info, postmaster@moroccanarganoil.org, postmaster@moroccanarganoil.net, and postmaster@moroccanarganoil.info. Also on November 5, 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 November 30, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) 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 Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <originalmoroccanoil.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.net>, <moroccanoilmiracle.org>, <moroccanoilmiracle.info>, <moroccanoilsecrets.net>, <moroccanoilsecrets.com>, <moroccanoilsecrets.org>, <moroccanoilsecrets.info>, <moroccanoiltherapy.com>, <moroccanoiltherapy.net>, <moroccanoiltherapy.org>, <moroccanoiltherapy.info>, <moroccanoiltreatment.com>, <moroccanoiltreatment.net>, <moroccanoiltreatment.org>, <moroccanoiltreatment.info>, <moroccanarganoil.org>, <moroccanarganoil.net>, and <moroccanarganoil.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MOROCCANOIL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <originalmoroccanoil.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.net>, <moroccanoilmiracle.org>, <moroccanoilmiracle.info>, <moroccanoilsecrets.net>, <moroccanoilsecrets.com>, <moroccanoilsecrets.org>, <moroccanoilsecrets.info>, <moroccanoiltherapy.com>, <moroccanoiltherapy.net>, <moroccanoiltherapy.org>, <moroccanoiltherapy.info>, <moroccanoiltreatment.com>, <moroccanoiltreatment.net>, <moroccanoiltreatment.org>, <moroccanoiltreatment.info>, <moroccanarganoil.org>, <moroccanarganoil.net>, and <moroccanarganoil.info> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <originalmoroccanoil.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.net>, <moroccanoilmiracle.org>, <moroccanoilmiracle.info>, <moroccanoilsecrets.net>, <moroccanoilsecrets.com>, <moroccanoilsecrets.org>, <moroccanoilsecrets.info>, <moroccanoiltherapy.com>, <moroccanoiltherapy.net>, <moroccanoiltherapy.org>, <moroccanoiltherapy.info>, <moroccanoiltreatment.com>, <moroccanoiltreatment.net>, <moroccanoiltreatment.org>, <moroccanoiltreatment.info>, <moroccanarganoil.org>, <moroccanarganoil.net>, and <moroccanarganoil.info> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Moroccanoil, Inc., Moroccanoil Israel Ltd, 3903150 Canada Inc., d/b/a Moroccanoil, & Ofer Tal, is the producer and distributor of hair care products including conditioners and shampoos, curl creams, hydrating style creams, moisturizing masques and styling and finishing oils. Complainant has submitted evidence to show that it owns numerous worldwide trademark registrations for its MOROCCANOIL mark including with the:
1. United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 3,478,807 issued August 5, 2008)
2. Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. TMA734460 issued February 13, 2009)
3. Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department (“HKIPD”) (e.g., Reg. No. 301,047,267 issued September 12, 2008)
4. Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,262,681 issued September 4, 2009) and the
5. European Union Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 6,492,185 issued September 18, 2008).
Respondent, Rafael Alter, registered the disputed domain names either on October 13, 2009 or October 14, 2009. Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites that feature search engines and various third-party links to both competing and unrelated businesses.
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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainant’s
The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
It is acceptable to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games and International Olympic Committee v. Hardeep Malik, FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
Likewise, in American Family Health Services Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 5, 2001) (“This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.”).
In this case Moroccanoil, Inc., Moroccanoil Israel Ltd, and 3903150 Canada Inc., d/b/a Moroccanoil are all related companies with the sole shareholder of each being Ofer Tal. Therefore, the Panel finds there is a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants and it will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding.
Complainant has submitted evidence to show that it owns numerous trademark registrations worldwide for its MOROCCANOIL mark including those with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,478,807 issued August 5, 2008); CIPO (e.g., Reg. No. TMA734460 issued February 13, 2009); HKIPD (e.g., Reg. No. 301,047,267 issued September 12, 2008); JPO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,262,681 issued September 4, 2009); and the OHIM (Reg. No. 6,492,185 issued September 18, 2008). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its MOROCCANOIL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with various governmental trademark authorities worldwide. See 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).”); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant argues that the <originalmoroccanoil.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.net>, <moroccanoilmiracle.org>, <moroccanoilmiracle.info>, <moroccanoilsecrets.net>, <moroccanoilsecrets.com>, <moroccanoilsecrets.org>, <moroccanoilsecrets.info>, <moroccanoiltherapy.com>, <moroccanoiltherapy.net>, <moroccanoiltherapy.org>, <moroccanoiltherapy.info>, <moroccanoiltreatment.com>, <moroccanoiltreatment.net>, <moroccanoiltreatment.org>, <moroccanoiltreatment.info>, <moroccanarganoil.org>, <moroccanarganoil.net>, and <moroccanarganoil.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MOROCCANOIL mark. Complainant first notes that generic top-level domains (“gTLD”) are required elements of a domain name and are not considered when analyzing Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds accordingly. See 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). Complainant then argues that all of the disputed domain names contain its MOROCCANOIL mark entirely while adding the generic or descriptive terms “miracle,” “secrets,” “therapy,” “treatment,” “original,” or “argan.” Complainant contends that such additions to its mark are not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees, and finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests in the <originalmoroccanoil.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.net>, <moroccanoilmiracle.org>, <moroccanoilmiracle.info>, <moroccanoilsecrets.net>, <moroccanoilsecrets.com>, <moroccanoilsecrets.org>, <moroccanoilsecrets.info>, <moroccanoiltherapy.com>, <moroccanoiltherapy.net>, <moroccanoiltherapy.org>, <moroccanoiltherapy.info>, <moroccanoiltreatment.com>, <moroccanoiltreatment.net>, <moroccanoiltreatment.org>, <moroccanoiltreatment.info>, <moroccanarganoil.org>, <moroccanarganoil.net>, and <moroccanarganoil.info> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant is required to produce a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to display that it does possess rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (finding that if the complainant satisfies its prima facie burden, “then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”); see also 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has failed to respond to these proceedings, and as such the Panel finds that it may infer that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 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 Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”). However, the Panel will analyze the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that it has not granted Respondent permission to use its MOROCCANOIL mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names list the registrant as “Rafael Alter,” which does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known as the disputed domain names. Respondent has not produced any evidence to show that it is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant further argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to host pay-per-click websites which generate revenue for Respondent. Complainant submitted screen-shot evidence to show that the third-party links advertised on Respondent’s websites direct Internet users to various competing and unrelated companies. The Panel finds that Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to show that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for 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 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)); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant).
Complainant alleges that Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant for $10,000 after Complainant sent its initial letter regarding the domain names. The Panel finds that this offer to sell is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that a respondent’s willingness to sell a domain name to the complainant suggests that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in that domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent, upon receiving Complainant’s initial letter regarding the domain names, offered to sell the domain names to Complainant for $10,000. Complainant argues that Respondent’s offer to sell the domain names for an amount above its out-of-pocket expenses of obtaining the domain names is evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant for $10,000 is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. AchievementTec, Inc., FA 192316 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name for $2,000 sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered domain names for sale).
Complainant notes that Respondent registered all of the disputed domain names on either October 13, 2009 or October 14, 2009. Previous panels have determined that registration of multiple trademark infringing domain names within a short period of time constitutes bad faith registration and use of such domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Miyar, FA 95623 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2000) (finding that registering multiple domain names in a short time frame indicates an intention to prevent the mark holder from using its mark and provides evidence of a pattern of conduct). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of twenty trademark infringing domain names within two days constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant has presented evidence and arguments to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to display various third-party links to competing businesses in the hair care supply industry. The Panel infers that such use likely disrupts Complainant’s business, and finds that such 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 David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business).
Lastly, Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to benefit commercially by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and the sponsorship or affiliation of the resolving websites. Complainant argues that Respondent’s websites are used to capture pay-per-click revenue from Internet users who click on any of the links displayed on the websites, and that such use is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to operate pay-per-click websites is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. 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).”); see also Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been 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 <originalmoroccanoil.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.com>, <moroccanoilmiracle.net>, <moroccanoilmiracle.org>, <moroccanoilmiracle.info>, <moroccanoilsecrets.net>, <moroccanoilsecrets.com>, <moroccanoilsecrets.org>, <moroccanoilsecrets.info>, <moroccanoiltherapy.com>, <moroccanoiltherapy.net>, <moroccanoiltherapy.org>, <moroccanoiltherapy.info>, <moroccanoiltreatment.com>, <moroccanoiltreatment.net>, <moroccanoiltreatment.org>, <moroccanoiltreatment.info>, <moroccanarganoil.org>, <moroccanarganoil.net>, and <moroccanarganoil.info> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 7, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page