Viking Office Products, Inc. v. Natasha Flaherty a/k/a ARS - N6YBV
Claim Number: FA1104001383534
Complainant is Viking Office Products, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Natasha Flaherty a/k/a ARS - N6YBV (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <viking.org>, registered with DirectNIC, LTD.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Daniel B. Banks, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 13, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 14, 2011.
On April 14, 2011, DirectNIC, LTD confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <viking.org> domain name is registered with DirectNIC, LTD and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DirectNIC, LTD has verified that Respondent is bound by the DirectNIC, LTD 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 April 15, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 5, 2011 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@viking.org. Also on April 15, 2011, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 6, 2011.
On May 10, 2011, an additional submission was timely filed by Complainant and was considered. On May 14, 2011, an additional submission was timely filed by Respondent and was considered.
On May 10, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Daniel B. Banks, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant:
Among other VIKING marks in the US and around the world, Complainant is the owner of U.S. Reg. No. 1,775,567 for the mark VIKING (stylized) covering “Retail catalog services 3 and distributorship services both in the fields of office supplies and office products; namely, paper goods, stationery, printed matter, writing instruments, office equipment, office furniture, chairs, adding machines, electronic calculators, telephones, electrical equipment, measuring appliances, magnetic diskettes and other magnetic media, computer products; retail catalog services and distributorship services of cardboard and cardboard articles; namely, storage boxes, corrugated record storage boxes, card files and file trays” having a registration date of June 8, 1993 and a date of first use of March 15, 1960.
Viking is a global supplier of office products and services. Viking is an affiliate of Office
Depot which has sold billion of dollars of products and services to consumers and businesses of all sizes through its three business segments: North American Retail Division, North American Business Solutions Division and International Division. Viking operates various websites, including one located at <viking.com>, through which it sells various goods and services.
At some point between August 1, 2006 and February 10, 2007, Respondent
became a co-registrant with the <viking.org>’s initial registrant, Paul Flaherty. See historic WHOIS records attached hereto collectively as Exhibit D dated August 1, 2006, showing Paul Flaherty as registrant and February 10, 2007 showing Paul and Natasha Flaherty as co-registrants.
At the time that Respondent became a co-registrant of the <viking.org> domain name, Complainant’s well known VIKING mark had been in use for nearly 50 years and
had been registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office for nearly 10 years.
At some time between June 16, 2009 and August 7, 2009, Respondent became the sole registrant of the <viking.org> domain name. As of the filing of this Complaint, Natasha Flaherty remains the sole registrant of the <viking.org> domain name.
During the time of Respondent’s exclusive control, Respondent has merely
passively held the <viking.org> domain name.
Respondent houses the domain name off shore with a registrar located in the
Cayman Islands.
When Complainant’s investigator contacted Respondent regarding a possible purchase of the <viking.org> domain name, Respondent requested “six or seven” figures, a sum which makes no sense unless Respondent was well aware of Complainant’s well known VIKING brand.
Complainant has not given Respondent any license, permission, or
authorization by which Respondent could make any use of any of its marks.
The Disputed Domain is nearly identical and confusingly similar
to the VIKING Mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain. (ICANN
Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)). Respondent, who refers to herself in the WHOIS record as both “Natasha Flaherty” and “ARS - N6YBV” has never has been commonly known as “viking.org” and has never used any trademark or service mark similar to the Disputed Domain by which it may have come to be known. Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the Disputed Domain, and is not making a protected non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain. Complainant has not granted Respondent any license, permission, or authorization by which it could own or use any domain name registration which is confusingly similar to any of Complainant’s marks.
Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain in bad faith. Respondent is located in the United States and therefore had at least constructive notice of the Complainant’s marks at the time the domain name was registered because of Complainant’s registration of its marks with the USPTO. Even if Respondent were able to claim lack of knowledge, bad faith can exist when a search of the trademarks registry would reveal the registration rights of a Complainant.
Respondent has registered the domain name and held it without using it in an apparent attempt to gain a “six or seven figure” windfall. Respondent has been the sole registrant of the <viking.org> domain name for approximately 1.5 years and has merely held the domain name passively. Such passive holding supports a finding of bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent:
The disputed domain name, <viking.org> was originally registered on August 10, 1997 by Natasha Flaherty's deceased husband: Paul Andrew Flaherty, PhD. [Exhibit A] Dr. Flaherty was a noted electrical engineer, computer scientist, internet pioneer, and the inventor of the historically significant Alta Vista search engine.
This domain name was used as Paul's personal domain, hosting email for him and Natasha, and a personal web site. The domain registration was subsequently transferred to Natasha following Paul's death on March 16, 2006. <viking.org> has strong sentimental meaning and value for Natasha because it represents the legacy of her deceased husband Paul and the happy times they shared together.
The domain name was registered under the Top Level .org domain (TLD), which was
originally created for the use of non-commercial organizations, such as non-profit groups, museums, etc, and is still widely used for that purpose. A non-commercial personal website is clearly within the scope of the original intended use of the “.org” TLD.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <viking.org> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s VIKING service mark, U.S. Reg. No.
1,775,567. This U.S. registration No. 1,775,567 is for the VIKING service mark “for retail catalog services and distributorship services both in the fields of office supplies and office products.” It is NOT a registration for a trademark on the descriptive word “viking”. Viking is a generic descriptive dictionary word and one cannot get trademark protection on a descriptive dictionary word it is used in its descriptive category
The Viking Office Products service mark bears no resemblance to any logo, text,
or font used on the <viking.org> website at any time since <viking.org>
was registered. There is no reference to retail catalog services, distributorship
services, office supplies and office products on the <viking.org> web site.
There is absolutely no consumer confusion between <viking.org> and
<viking.com>.
Respondent’s domain name is the common descriptive dictionary word “viking”.
It is well established that Complainant is not entitled to protection for every usage
of the word “viking” and that Complainant’s service mark is for retail catalog services and distributorship services both in the fields of office supplies and office products. Therefore Respondent’s domain is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s VIKING service mark.
Complainant has not provided, and cannot provide, genuine evidence of
distinctiveness or secondary meaning in the common word “viking.” The word is
subject to substantial third-party use, as evidenced by a Google search for 'viking',
which returns about 74,600,000 hits, including numerous commercial and noncommercial uses.
Viking Office Products clearly does not have any right to expect that a reasonable
person will associate the generic term "viking" with their company, except within
the very limited scope of retail catalog services and distributorship services both
in the fields of office supplies and office products, as covered by the registration
of their service mark.
Moreover, a search of the USPTO Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
<USPTO.gov> returned 237 instances of live trademarks and service marks that
include “viking.”
A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is warranted where “the
Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it
could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.” Futureworld
Consultancy Pty Ltd. v. Online Advice, No D2003-0297 (WIPO July 18, 2003).
The filing of an unjustified complaint, where the complainant should have known
it is unjustified, constitutes reverse domain name hijacking. Kur-und Verkehrsverein St. Moritz v. Domain Finance Ltd., No. D2004-0158 (WIPO June 14, 2004). Here, a rudimentary investigation into the basic facts of this case should have alerted Complainant that it has no viable case under the Policy. “viking” is a common descriptive dictionary word subject to substantial third-party use, and Complainant has not, and cannot, prove genuine evidence of trademark ownership, distinctiveness, or secondary meaning in the word. Most damaging to Complainant is the fact that Complainant’s hired consultants, Rebecca M. Rogers and Ross D. Bulla, sent a series of emails to the Respondent in an unsuccessful attempt to purchase Respondent’s domain. This UDRP proceeding appears to be Complainant’s “Plan B.” The improper use of the UDRP in an attempt to acquire a domain name, where an attempt to purchase the domain name fails, is a particularly egregious example of reverse domain name hijacking. See Mess Enterprises v. Scott Enterprises, Ltd., No. D2004-0964 (WIPO Jan. 25, 2005).
Moreover, the fact that Ms. Rogers and Mr. Bulla hid from Respondent the fact that they were retained by Complainant and would not answer Respondent’s direct question as to the purpose of their interest in her domain, and the fact that Complainant withheld this information from the Panel, severely damages Complainant’s credibility in this proceeding and casts doubts on its other allegations. See Amsec Enterprises, L.C. v. McCall, D2001-0083 (WIPO April 3, 2001) (withholding of material facts “casts doubts on the other contentions made by Complainant.”). In summary, there was no basis for bringing this Complaint. Complainant only initiated it after it was unsuccessful in purchasing the domain lawfully from Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel should
find that Complainant has abused these proceedings and has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant:
As disclosed in the Complaint, before the Complaint was filed Complainant’s
investigators – whose emails identified themselves as I.P. investigators and whose company information was set forth in all emails - approached Respondent in an attempt to purchase the domain name at a cost which was lower than the cost of UDRP proceedings. If the Respondent had said to the investigators what she is now saying to the Panel, namely that she has a sentimental attachment to the domain name and that she has some (undefined) free speech use in mind for the domain name and that it was therefore not for sale, that would have ended the matter. However, that is not what the Respondent said in her emails. What she said was:
“Sell viking.org for a measley [sic] $250? No way.”
In response to the question “What will you take for the domain?”
Respondent states “7 or 8 figures.”
“A measley [sic] $750? No way”
“A measley [sic] $1000? No way. Refer below…when I wrote 7 or 8 figures
(on the left side of the decimal point), I meant it.”
“The domain is worth 8 to 9 figures (left side of the decimal point) and that
is the lowest that I will accept.”
Clearly, in spite of the Respondent’s recent assertions made to the Panel of non-commercial intent, her actions have been very much commercial. She states that the domain name is worth “8 to 9 figures”, but such a domain name could only be conceivably sold for that amount to a party who has invested in a global VIKING brand and even in that event the value would come from the brand and not from the domain name. Even after Complainant’s investigators made direct reference to Complainant’s <viking.com> domain name and website, Respondent failed to retract her demand for millions of dollars.
For all the reasons set forth in the Complaint and in these Additional Submissions, Complainant asks that the Panel deny the Respondent’s request for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking and grant Complainant’s request for an order to transfer of the <viking.org> domain name to Viking Office Products, Inc.
Respondent:
Complainant’s Additional Submission raised the following five points and this
Response will address them in turn:
1. Complainant states that Respondent’s actions were commercial and that
Complainant’s investigators identified themselves in all emails, implying that the
investigators were not secretive.
2. Complainant states that “If the Respondent had said to the investigators what she is
now saying to the Panel, namely that she has a sentimental attachment to the
domain name and that she has some (undefined) free speech use in mind for the
domain name and that it was therefore not for sale, that would have ended the
matter.”
3. Complainant cites UDRP Rule 4.b.(i) as an example of “Evidence of Registration
and Use in Bad Faith” but again fails to provide evidence that Respondent has acted
in bad faith.
4. Complainant asserts that Respondent took title to the <viking.org> domain after her
husband’s death, when in fact Respondent held shared title to the domain from the
initial date of registration according to the community property laws of the state of
California.
5. Complainant asserts that Respondent is using <viking.org> in bad faith after her
husband’s death.
Respondent replies to each of these points as follows:
1 - Complainant’s investigators demanded to know what Respondent’s valuation of the
<viking.org> domain is. Complainant is misconstruing Respondent’s responses of “7 to 8 figures” and “8 to 9 figures” as indications of Respondent’s commercial actions. That is not the case. The <viking.org> domain has great sentimental value to Respondent. How can one put a price on the legacy of a deceased spouse? $10 million? $20 million? The value is what Respondent decides it is and should not be misconstrued as an offer to sell at any price.
2 - There is no evidence in any of Complainant’s investigators’ emails that had Respondent disclosed personal information about the death of her husband and the sentimental value that <viking.org> holds for her to these strangers that approached her unsolicited that the Complainant would have ended this matter.
3 - Complainant still has failed to provide evidence that Respondent has registered or
acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise
transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of the
Complainant. This is because no such evidence exists. On the other hand, Respondent has provided a great deal of evidence of her legitimate interest and active use of the domain <viking.org>. Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP), which is used to serve web pages, is but one of a number of common internet services. There is no requirement for any domain to provide a specific service in order to be considered 'active'. The presence or absence of a web site is therefore irrelevant in determining if a domain name is in active use. Respondent has consistently maintained Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) email services associated with the <viking.org> domain.
4 - Paul Andrew Flaherty and Natasha Margaret Minenko Flaherty (née Natalie Margaret Minenko) were legally married in California on August 31, 1991 and were domiciled in California throughout the length of their marriage. Hence when Dr. Flaherty registered the <viking.org> domain on August 10, 1997, it was legally considered community property of Dr. and Mrs. Flaherty together. Complainant’s assertion that Respondent took shared title to the domain name <viking.org> sometime after August 8, 2006 and on or before February 10, 2007 is therefore incorrect according to the laws of the state of California.
5 - Complainant’s argument in the Additional Submission that Dr. Flaherty acted in good
faith, or that his actions are irrelevant in this matter, but Respondent developed bad faith after the death of her husband is patently absurd. There is no support in the law for this at all.
Complainant has not submitted any evidence to show that Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it to Complainant. Likewise, Complainant has not submitted any evidence to show that Respondent registered the domain name to disrupt the business of Complainant or to prevent Complainant from registering its mark in corresponding domain names. Complainant has not submitted any evidence to show that Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business. Complainant has also not submitted any evidence to show Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s web site or location. There is absolutely no consumer confusion between the goods and services offered at <viking.com> and the legitimate noncommercial and fair use expression of free speech at <viking.org>.
For all the reasons set forth in the Response to Complaint and in this Response to
Additional Submission, Respondent asks that the Panel deny the Complainant’s request for an order to transfer registration of the <viking.org> domain name to Viking Office Products, Inc. and instead grant the Respondent’s request for a finding of reverse domain name
hijacking.
1 - The disputed domain name is comprised of a common and descriptive term and as such, cannot be deemed identical to Complainant's mark.
2 - Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
3 - Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof of bad faith registration and use.
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."
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.
The disputed domain name is comprised of a common and descriptive term and thus cannot be deemed identical to Complainant's mark.
Respondent and her deceased husband (the original registrant of the disputed domain name) are/were commonly known by the disputed domain name as it is associated with their email addresses, <natasha@mail.viking.org> and <paulf@mail.viking.org>. There is evidence of personal calling cards, first established in 1997, displaying the email address <natasha@mail.viking.org> and evidence that indicates that her late husband’s personal contact information after graduating from Stanford University was <paulf@mail.viking.org> as listed in the alumni directory. The Panel finds that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), since its registration in 1997. See Digitronics Inventioneering Corp. v. @Six.Net Registered, D2000-0008 (WIPO Mar. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent was commonly known by the <six.net> and <sixnet.com> domain names even though the complainant had registered the SIXNET trademark because the respondent demonstrated that its customers associated the respondent’s company with the domain names).
Respondent states that the website is not being passively held. The disputed domain name celebrates Respondent’s late husband’s Nordic heritage and personal interest in Vikings. Respondent's husband, Paul Flaherty, originally registered the disputed domain name on August 10, 1997 and Respondent became the registrant of the domain name after his death on March 16, 2006. The domain name was used as her husband’s personal domain and hosted email for both Respondent and her late husband. Respondent contends that the <viking.org> domain name has strong sentimental value and represents the legacy of her deceased husband. Respondent says that the website resolving from the disputed domain name inadvertently went offline sometime after her husband’s death. However, Respondent also says that the disputed domain name has been continuously used for email services since 1997. Additionally, Respondent indicates that she restored the resolving website from archives on April 16, 2011 confirming its historic content and function. Respondent submits evidence of its prior use of the disputed domain name to host noncommercial content. Additionally, Respondent argues that prior to restoring the website on April 16, 2011, there was no webpage publically accessible from the <viking.org> domain name and that Respondent’s use of the domain name in connection with Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) prevents a finding of inactive use of the website. The Panel agrees with Respondent and finds that Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (“The use of domain names for non-commercial purposes is a recognized method of proving rights and legitimate interests on the part of such user even when the use may cause some disadvantage or harm to other parties.”); see also Baja Marine Corp. v. Wheeler Techs., Inc., FA 96954 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 17, 2001) (finding that the respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name where the respondent made a non-commercial use of the <bajaboats.com> domain name and received no funds from users of the site connected to the domain name).
Respondent also contends that the <viking.org> domain name is common and descriptive, and therefore, Complainant does not have an exclusive monopoly on the term on the Internet. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent can establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Kaleidoscope Imaging, Inc. v. V Entm’t, FA 203207 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 5, 2004) (finding that the respondent was using the <kaleidoscope.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services because the term was “generic” and respondent was using the disputed domain name as a search tool for Internet users interested in kaleidoscopes); see also Qwest Commc’ns Int’l v. QC Publ’g Grp., Inc., FA 286032 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2004) (stating that “Complainant’s rights in the QWEST mark are limited to its application to the tele-communications industry,” where a variety of other businesses used the mark in unrelated fields).
The Panel concludes that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <viking.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and finds that Respondent did not register or use the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Skunkworx Custom Cycle, D2004-0824 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2005) (finding that the issue of bad faith registration and use was moot once the panel found the respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Investors Fast Track, FA 863257 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 18, 2007) (“Because Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, his registration is not in bad faith.”).
Complainant has not submitted any evidence to show that Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling it to Complainant. Respondent states that it has not at any time offered to sell the <viking.org> domain name. The Panel agrees with Respondent and finds that Respondent did not in fact offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Puky GmbH v. Agnello, D2001-1345 (WIPO Jan. 3, 2002) (finding insufficient evidence to hold that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where the complainant initiated contact with the respondent and the respondent responded with an offer to sell its domain name registration for $50,000); see also Open Sys. Computing AS v. degli Alessandri, D2000-1393 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that the respondent was not acting in bad faith by discussing the sale of its domain name registration when the complainant initiated an offer to purchase it from the respondent).
Additionally, the <viking.org> domain name is comprised entirely of a common term that has many meanings apart from use in Complainant’s VIKING mark. Moreover, the registration and use of a domain name comprising such a common term is not necessarily done in bad faith. The respondent is free to register a domain name consisting of common terms. See Zero Int'l Holding v. Beyonet Servs., D2000-0161 (WIPO May 12, 2000) ("Common words and descriptive terms are legitimately subject to registration as domain names on a 'first-come, first-served' basis."); see also Target Brands, Inc. v. Eastwind Group, FA 267475 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 9, 2004) (holding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <target.org> domain name was not in bad faith because the complainant’s TARGET mark is a generic term); see also Miller Brewing Co. v. Hong, FA 192732 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that because the respondent was using the <highlife.com> domain name, a generic phrase, in connection with a search engine, the respondent did not register and was not using the disputed domain name in bad faith).
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Respondent alleges that Complainant has acted in bad faith and is engaging in reverse domain name hijacking by initiating this dispute. Respondent contends that Complainant is attempting to deprive Respondent, the rightful, registered holder of the <viking.org> domain name, of its rights to use the disputed domain name. Respondent alleges that in this case a rudimentary investigation into the basic facts of this case should have alerted Complainant that it has no viable case under the Policy as “viking” is a common descriptive dictionary word subject to substantial third-party use. Additionally, Respondent indicates that Complainant hired consultants to send a series of emails to Respondent in an unsuccessful attempt to purchase Respondent’s disputed domain name. It appears that this tactic was for the purpose of getting Respondent to offer to sell the domain name and establish a basis for bad faith. Respondent suggests that this UDRP proceeding is thus Complainant’s “Plan B.” Respondent argues that Complainant’s failure to disclose the fact that the consultants who contacted Respondent were hired by Complainant severely damages Complainant’s credibility in this proceeding and casts doubt on Complainant’s other allegations.
The Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <viking.org> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred. See NetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (“To establish reverse domain name hijacking, Respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the Complainant in the fact of such knowledge.”); see also Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Glisson, FA 250232 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2004) (finding that complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking where it used “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).
Having failed to establish the necessary elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
The Panel further enters a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Daniel B. Banks, Jr., Panelist
Dated: May 31, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page