RueLaLa, Inc. v. WebRelate, LLC / Howard Tseng
Claim Number: FA1202001430797
Complainant is RueLaLa, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Theodore R. Remaklus of Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, Ohio, USA. Respondent is WebRelate, LLC / Howard Tseng (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ruelala.co>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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 February 22, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 22, 2012.
On February 22, 2012, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ruelala.co> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, Inc. 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 February 24, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 15, 2012 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@ruelala.co. Also on February 24, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 March 27, 2012, 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 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 the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is the operator of the Rue La La Internet website, which is an invitation-only website devoted to style. It includes private, limited time sales boutiques offering members incredible opportunities to purchase some of the most sought-after brands in fashion, accessories, footwear, home, travel, wine, gourmet food, local services, and more. Complainant registered the domain name <ruelala.com> through the DomainsByProxy service on October 1, 2007.
Complainant also promotes its website through faithful followers on its Facebook and Twitter accounts, and apps available for iPhone and Droid users. Complainant has spent considerable resources since it started the Rue La La Internet website in 2008 in promoting its website. As a result of such extensive use and promotion, the Rue La La mark has acquired a high degree of public recognition, fame, and distinctiveness as a symbol of the source of high quality services offered by Complainant, and embodies valuable reputation and good will belonging exclusively to Complainant.
Complainant owns numerous U.S. and non-U.S. (Australia, EU, Japan, Russia, Singapore and Taiwan) service mark registrations for the Rue La La mark for use in connection with on- line retail store services. Although the registrations are in the name of Retail Convergence, Inc., Complainant changed its name from Retail Convergence, Inc. on September 27, 2010. All of the registrations are valid, subsisting, and in full force and effect.
Due to Complainant's long and continuous use of the Rue La La mark in connection with providing high quality and desirable on-line retail services, as well as the excellence of its services, the Rue La La mark is widely recognized by the public as an indicator of the source of Complainant's services. Accordingly, the Rue La La mark has acquired a high degree of public recognition and distinctiveness and symbolizes enormously valuable good will for Complainant.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: ICANN Rule
3(c)(ix).
(a.) Respondent's Domain Name Is Identical or Confusingly Similar to
Complainant's Rue La La Mark. ICANN Rule 3(c)(ix)(1); ICANN Policy ¶
4(a)(i).
As evidenced above, Complainant has demonstrated its ownership and use of the Rue La La mark, the United States and non-U.S. service mark registrations it owns for its Rue La La mark, and the manner in which Complainant uses the Rue La La mark in relation to the operation of its <ruelala.com> website. Complainant's Rue La La mark is widely and well- known and indicative of the source of Complainant's on-line retail services. Indeed, Complainant's ownership of the numerous registrations for the Rue La La mark, as set out above, establishes that Complainant has a presumption of rights in the Rue La La mark. See Janus Int'l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. The burden then shifts to the Respondent to refute that presumption).
The domain name RUELALA.CO is identical to and fully incorporates Complainant's registered Rue La La mark. Thus, the domain name registered by Respondent should be considered confusingly similar to Complainant's Rue La La mark because it incorporates Complainant's Rue La La mark in its entirety. ICANN Rule 3(c)(ix)(1); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(i). Indeed, the only difference between the RUELALA.CO domain and Complainant's registered Rue La La mark is the inclusion of the generic top-level domain .CO, and is otherwise identical to Complainant's own <ruelala.com> domain.
Moreover, the Respondent's domain, RUELALA.CO, simply and automatically redirects a consumer directly to the Amazon.com Internet website. Rather, the RUELALA.CO domain automatically takes a user to the Amazon.com website, which sells goods in direct competition with Complainant. Thus, because Respondent's domain name, RUELALA.CO, so resembles Complainant's Rue La La mark, the use of that domain name by Respondent is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive persons by creating the erroneous impression that Complainant's Internet website is no longer operating, because the consumer is taken directly to the Amazon.com website when the consumer thinks that he or she entered Complainant's RUELALA.COM domain when he or she erroneously entered Respondent's RUELALA.CO domain by mistake, or alternatively that Complainant is now somehow associated or affiliated with Amazon.com. As a result, the registration of the domain name RUELALA.CO by Respondent is injurious to Complainant.
Moreover, because of the widespread renown, use, promotion, and advertisement by Complainant of the Rue La La mark, Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant's rights in the Rue La La mark, and the valuable goodwill represented and symbolized by Complainant's Rue La La mark, when it registered the domain name RUELALA.CO. Indeed, the Respondent's domain was not created until July 20, 2010, more than 2 years after Complainant began using the Rue La La mark. Respondent's adoption, registration, and use of the challenged domain name is without the license or permission of Complainant. Therefore, Respondent's continued registration and use of that domain name without the consent or permission of Complainant infringes Complainant's rights under the United States federal Trademark Act, namely, 15 U.S.C. Section 1114, and 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, and constitutes false advertising under 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, and constitutes unfair competition in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
(b.) Respondent Has No Rights Or Legitimate Interest In the
Challenged Domain Name. ICANN Rule 3(c)(ix)(2); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii)
Complainant does not know of any trademark or other intellectual property rights, or any other legitimate interest held by Respondent in the RUELALA.CO domain name. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Respondent has not sought nor been granted permission to use Complainant's Rue La La mark in any way. There is also no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii). The WHOIS registration information also fails to imply that Respondent is commonly known by the name "RUELALA". See Tercent Inc. v. 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 Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark). Therefore, Complainant submits that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the challenged domain name.
Furthermore, Respondent's domain name contains Complainant's Rue La La mark in its entirety for the purpose of directing users to the Amazon.com website, a competitor of Complainant. Other Panels have concluded that this is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See eBay Inc. v. Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the respondent's use of the Complainant's entire mark in domain names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate use); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent's diversionary use of the Complainant's marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the Complainant's competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaFaive, FA 95407 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2000) ("The unauthorized providing of information and services under a mark owned by a third party cannot be said to be the bona fide offering of goods or services.").
Respondent is not affiliated with, licensed by, in privity with Complainant, it has not been given permission to use the Rue La La mark by Complainant, and it is not otherwise in any way connected with Complainant. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
These facts weigh strongly against any conclusion that Respondent selected its "RUELALA.CO" domain name in good faith. See America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that "[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent's operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark and for the same business").
It appears that Respondent's sole motivation in registering the RUELALA.CO domain name was for the purpose of diverting customers seeking Complainant's legitimate Internet website, to misdirect those customers and to earn monies earned through customers being redirected to the Amazon.com website. Such use has not been held to be a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc. , FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name); see also Kosmea Pty Ltd v. Krpan, D2000-0948 (WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent has an intention to divert consumers of Complainant's products to Respondent's site by using Complainant's mark.)
(c.) Respondent's Registration of the Challenged Domain Name Should be Considered as Having Been Registered and Being Used in Bad Faith. ICANN Rule 3(c)(ix)(3); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(iii)
Generally, the Panel looks at "the totality of circumstances" to determine if Respondent's bad faith in registering a domain is apparent. See, e.g., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the "totality of circumstances"). The following circumstances compel the transfer of the RUELALA.CO domain name.
(i.) Respondent's registration of the challenged domain name appears to be with the intent of diverting business away from Complainant, and/or to confuse customers who seek out Complainant's business concern and/or Complainant's services on the Internet. By virtue of the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, the public will inevitably be confused as to source, or as to the identity of the provider of services offered under the same or essentially similar names.
(ii.) Complainant sent a letter to Registrant on or about December 15, 2011, advising Registrant of its infringement of the Rue La La mark and demanding that Registrant agree to transfer the RUELALA.CO domain by January 31, 2012. Registrant failed to even respond to the letter.
(iii.) Because Respondent is not affiliated with or connected in any way with Complainant, it is further submitted that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith. Complainant submits that Respondent obtained the challenged domain name merely for the purpose of exploiting the rights of Complainant, and/or to profit from "pirating" Complainant's ability to use Complainant's Rue La La mark within the context of a ".co" domain name, and to frustrate Complainant's business opportunities on the Internet by diverting customers away from a legitimate website owned and/or operated by Complainant.
(iv.) Prior UDRP panels have found bad faith from the circumstance of a registrant's selecting a domain name which is confusingly similar to a Complainant's mark and that would likely be associated with Complainant's well-known products or services. See, e.g. Oly Holigan, L.P. v. Private, FA 95940 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2000) (finding bad faith where respondent used the disputed domain name to "redirect the Complainant's consumers and potential consumers to commercial web sites which are not affiliated with Complainant.").
Whatever Respondent's intent in registering the challenged domain name, Respondent's actions have disrupted Complainant's business. Respondent's actions are injurious to Complainant because Respondent may attempt to attract, for Respondent's own commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's challenged website, or to some other on-line location owned or controlled by Respondent, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's Rue La La mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) The <ruelala.co> domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <ruelala.co> domain name.
(3) The <ruelala.co> domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Complainant to 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.
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.”).
Complainant claims it has rights in the RUELALA mark. Complainant has provided evidence of its registrations through the USPTO for the RUELALA mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,484,375 registered August 12, 2008). Panels have found the registration of a mark with a national trademark authority is evidence of rights in a mark. See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s federal trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has rights in the RUELALA mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <ruelala.co> domain name is identical to its mark. Complainant argues Respondent has done nothing more than add the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” to its mark (which indicates the country Columbia). The Panel finds Respondent’s addition of a ccTLD fails to make the <ruelala.co> domain name distinct in any way from Complainant’s RUELALA mark. See Tropar Mfg. Co. v. TSB, FA 127701 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2002) (finding that since the addition of the country-code “.us” fails to add any distinguishing characteristic to the domain name, the <tropar.us> domain name is identical to the complainant’s TROPAR mark); see also Mattel, Inc. v. Unknown, FA 490083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 11, 2005) (“The domain name [<Barbie.us>] is identical to the trademark “Barbie”, as it uses the trademark in its entirety. The only difference is the addition of the country code “us” which for this purpose is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark.”). The Panel finds Respondent’s <ruelala.co> domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has some rights or legitimate interests. See 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 UDRP ¶4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant claims Respondent is not commonly known by the <ruelala.co> domain name. Complainant argues the WHOIS record for the <ruelala.co> domain name, which lists “WebRelate, LLC / Howard Tseng” as the domain name registrant, does not suggest Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant further claims Respondent does not have permission to use the RUELALA mark and does not have service marks or trademarks reflecting the <ruelala.co> domain name which would allow Respondent to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <ruelala.co> domain name pursuant to 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 Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant argues Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not protected under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Complainant claims the <ruelala.co> domain name resolves to a website which immediately redirects users to the <amazon.com> domain name. Complainant claims the <amazon.com> domain name allows Internet users to buy products in competition with Complainant’s products. Panels have found the use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a competing website does not provide the respondent with rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel services that competed with the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Power of Choice Holding Co., FA 621292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of domain names confusingly similar to the complainant’s WAL-MART mark to divert Internet users seeking the complainant’s goods and services to websites competing with the complainant did not constitute 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)). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s use of the <ruelala.co> domain name is neither a Policy ¶4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant argues Respondent’s registration and use of the <ruelala.co> domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business. Complainant argues Respondent’s diversion of Internet traffic from Complainant and to Respondent’s website, by presenting a false affiliation to Complainant, is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. Complainant claims the <ruelala.co> domain name redirects Internet users immediately to <amazon.com>, which sells products which compete with Complainant. Panels have found that diverting Internet users to a website offering competing products is disruptive. See 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).”); see also Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the <ruelala.co> domain name disruptive and in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iii).
Complainant claims Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to cause confusion about the source of the disputed domain name and then to take commercial advantage of Internet users’ mistakes regarding that confusion. The <ruelala.co> domain name resolves to the <amazon.com> web site where a competing Internet retail store operates selling similar items. Complainant claims Respondent uses an identical domain name to cause confusion resulting in Internet users mistakenly thinking Complainant is the source of the <ruelala.co> domain name so that they would use the website. The Panel infers Respondent is directly or indirectly compensated for this redirection. The Panel finds Respondent acted in bad faith because Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to take commercial advantage of Internet users’ mistakes as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site).
Complainant claims Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the RUELALA mark. Complainant argues the widespread use, renown, promotion, and advertisement of the RUELALA mark suggest Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights. Although panels have not generally regarded constructive notice to be sufficient for a finding of bad faith, the Panel finds Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights and determines Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Nat'l Patent Servs. Inc. v. Bean, FA 1071869 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 1, 2007) ("[C]onstructive notice does not support a finding of bad faith registration."); see also Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ruelala.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page