Fitness Anywhere LLC v. Meng Li
Claim Number: FA1107001396862
Complainant is Fitness Anywhere LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Omid A. Mantashi of Attorney at Law, California, USA. Respondent is Meng Li (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 4, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 4, 2011.
On July 6, 2011, GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com 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 July 7, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 27, 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@bitrx.info, postmaster@trxaa.info, postmaster@trxab.info, postmaster@trxac.info, postmaster@trxad.info, postmaster@trxae.info, postmaster@trxaf.info, postmaster@trxag.info, postmaster@trxah.info, postmaster@trxai.info, postmaster@trxaj.info, postmaster@trxak.info, postmaster@trxal.info, postmaster@trxam.info, postmaster@trxan.info, postmaster@trxao.info, postmaster@trxap.info, postmaster@trxaq.info, postmaster@trxar.info, postmaster@trxas.info, postmaster@trxat.info, postmaster@trxau.info, postmaster@trxav.info, postmaster@trxaw.info, and postmaster@trxtu.info. Also on July 7, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 1, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRX mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Fitness Anywhere LLC, uses the TRX mark in connection with its physical exercise instructional services and products. Complainant has registered its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”):
Reg. No. 3,202,696 registered January 23, 2007 and
Reg. No. 3,384,871 registered February 19, 2008.
Respondent, Meng Li, registered the disputed domain names on or after May 19, 2011. The <trxan.info> and <trxap.info> disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites and the <trxas.info> domain name resolves to a commercial website mimicking a third-party fashion house in order to sell counterfeit dresses. No evidence is presented regarding the use of the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names.
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 has registered its TRX mark with the USPTO:
Reg. No. 3,202,696 registered January 23, 2007 and
Reg. No. 3,384,871 registered February 19, 2008.
The past panel in Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) held that a USPTO trademark registration was sufficient to establish rights in a mark. Therefore, this Panel concludes that Complainant’s trademark registrations are sufficient to prove Complainant’s rights in the TRX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel further holds that a USPTO trademark registration suffices even when Respondent lives or operates in another country. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRX mark. The Panel finds that in each disputed domain name Complainant’s TRX mark is followed by two random letters and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.info.” The Panel determines that adding two letters to Complainant’s mark fails to remove the disputed domain name from the realm of confusing similarity. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Amigos On Line RJ, FA 115041 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 28, 2002) (finding that the <aolrj.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark because “…the addition of a string of indiscriminate letters to a famous mark in a second level domain does not differentiate the domain name from the mark.”); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks). In line with prior panel decisions in Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) and Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000), the Panel here also holds that the attached gTLD “.info” is not relevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) determination. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRX mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel concludes Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) places the initial burden of showing a prima facie case on Complainant. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied its obligation for the <trxas.info>, <trxan.info>, and <trxap.info> disputed domain names, Respondent has not responded. Consequently, the Panel infers that Complainant’s allegations can be accepted as true and that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests in the <trxas.info>, <trxan.info>, and <trxap.info> disputed domain names. In the interest of fairness, however, the Panel will still consider the evidence against the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
In regards to the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names, the Panel determines that Complainant has not made a prima facie case. Complainant provides no screen shots of these disputed domain names and does not make any specific allegations regarding them. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that Complainant has not demonstrated a prima facie case and declines to transfer the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Claessens Prod. Consultants BV v. Claessens Int’l Ltd., FA 238656 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2004) (finding that Complainant failed to meet its burden pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) where Complainant neglected to state how Respondent used the disputed domain name in the Complaint); see also VeriSign Inc. v. VeneSign C.A., D2000-0303 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (“Respondent's default, however, does not lead to an automatic ruling for Complainant. Complainant still must establish a prima facie case showing that under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy it is entitled to a transfer of the domain name.”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the <trxas.info>, <trxan.info>, and <trxap.info> disputed domain names and denies any association, relationship, affiliation, connection or endorsement between Complainant and Respondent. The Panel finds the WHOIS information provides evidence supporting this assertion as it indicates that the registrant of the disputed domain names is “Meng Li.” In light of these facts and the lack of other evidence to the contrary, the Panel determines that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) as it is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected).
Complainant argues that the <trxas.info> domain names resolves to a website that mimics the third-party Reiss fashion house in order to sell counterfeit copies of Reiss’ dresses. Complainant alleges that hosting this completely unrelated commercial website under Complainant’s mark at the <trxas.info> disputed domain name is not consistent with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Pelham, FA 117911 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2002) (finding that because the respondent is using the infringing domain name to sell prescription drugs, the panel could infer that the respondent is using the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its website for commercial benefit); see also Imation Corp. v. Streut, FA 125759 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 8, 2002) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to an online casino).
In contrast, Complainant provides evidence that the <trxan.info> and <trxap.info> domain names do not currently support active websites due to Complainant’s prior counterfeit enforcement efforts. The Panel finds that this failure to use the <trxan.info> and <trxap.info> domain names also demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests as Respondent is not making a bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where the respondent merely passively held the domain name); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Sandhu, FA 96261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that no rights or legitimate interests can be found when the respondent fails to use disputed domain names in any way).
The Panel concludes Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied for the <trxas.info>, <trxan.info>, and <trxap.info> domain names. The Panel determines that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has not been satisfied for the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names.
Complainant contends that because Respondent has registered 25 disputed domain names containing Complainant’s mark, the Panel can infer that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith with the intent to sell the disputed domain names for profit. Due to the lack of evidence showing any intent to sell or offers to sell, however, the Panel does not find bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration of the 25 disputed domain names is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). However, Complainant has only presented evidence of use for three of the disputed domain names: the <trxas.info>, <trxan.info>, and <trxap.info> domain names. Therefore, the Panel determines that there is not sufficient evidence of bad faith registration AND use of the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Consequently, the Panel finds no bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s use of the 25 disputed domain names shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by disrupting Complainant’s business. As Complainant presented no evidence that Respondent was a competitor of Complainant or that Respondent’s websites facilitated competition with Complainant, the Panel finds no bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant asserts that the <trxas.info> domain name resolves to a commercial website selling counterfeit dresses by mimicking the website of the dress company. Complainant argues that Respondent uses the TRX mark in the <trxas.info> domain name to attract Internet users to this commercial website, subsequently creating confusion and hoping to profit from the diverted traffic. The Panel holds that this effort to mislead, confuse, and profit from Complainant’s customers and mark reveals bad faith registration and use of the <trxas.info> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Anne of Green Gable Licensing Auth., Inc. v. Internetworks, AF-0109 (eResolution June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent admittedly used the complainant’s well-known mark to attract users to the respondent's website).
The Panel finds that the enumerated Policy ¶ 4(b) factors are not exhaustive, and thus the totality of the circumstances may be considered when analyzing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith); see also Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that the criteria specified in 4(b) of the Policy is not an exhaustive list of bad faith evidence).
Complainant provides evidence that the <trxan.info> and <trxap.info> domain names are not actively being used as Respondent has removed all content from the resolving websites. Based on prior panel holdings, the Panel determines that this failure to actively use the <trxan.info> and <trxap.info> domain names is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith); see also Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use).
As Complainant merely presented arguments and accusations regarding the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names, the Panel concludes that, absent any evidence of Respondent’s use of the domain names, Complainant has failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) as to the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names. See Graman USA Inc. v. Shenzhen Graman Indus. Co., FA 133676 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2003) (finding that general allegations of bad faith without supporting facts or specific examples do not supply a sufficient basis upon which the panel may conclude that the respondent acted in bad faith); Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (finding that the complainant failed to establish that respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because mere assertions of bad faith are insufficient for a complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel concludes Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied for the <trxas.info>, <trxan.info>, and <trxap.info> domain names. The Panel also concludes that Complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) for the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED for the <trxas.info>, <trxan.info>, and <trxap.info> domain names.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <trxas.info>, <trxan.info>, and <trxap.info> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED for the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bitrx.info>, <trxaa.info>, <trxab.info>, <trxac.info>, <trxad.info>, <trxae.info>, <trxaf.info>, <trxag.info>, <trxah.info>, <trxai.info>, <trxaj.info>, <trxak.info>, <trxal.info>, <trxam.info>, <trxan.info>, <trxao.info>, <trxap.info>, <trxaq.info>, <trxar.info>, <trxas.info>, <trxat.info>, <trxau.info>, <trxav.info>, <trxaw.info>, and <trxtu.info> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: August 15, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page