Regions Asset Company v. Above.com Domain Privacy
Claim Number: FA1205001444181
Complainant is Regions Asset Company (“Complainant”), represented by Rachel Hofstatter of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is Above.com Domain Privacy (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com>, registered with Above.com Pty Ltd.
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 May 15, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 15, 2012.
On May 15, 2012, Above.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names are registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Above.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.com Pty 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 May 16, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 5, 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@regionscreditcard.com and postmaster@regionsbnak.com. Also on May 16, 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 June 8, 2012, 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
Complainant makes the following contentions:
a) Complainant has rights in the REGIONS and REGIONSBANK marks, which it uses in connection with banking, financial, and credit card services among other things;
b) Complainant owns trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the REGIONS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,881,600 registered February 28, 1995);
c) Complainant owns USPTO trademark registrations for the REGIONSBANK mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,918,496 registered September 12, 1995);
d) The <regionscreditcard.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the REGIONS mark;
e) The <regionsbnak.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the REGIONSBANK mark;
f) Respondent is not commonly known by the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names;
g) The <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names resolve to websites that display links directly in competition with the goods and services Complainant offers;
h) With regard to the <regionsbnak.com> domain name, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting;
i) Respondent has developed a pattern of registering and using disputed domain names in bad faith;
j) The <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names are disruptive to Complainant’s business;
k) Respondent attempts to create a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the disputed domain names in order to commercially gain from the registration and use of the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names;
l) Respondent had constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the REGIONS and REGIONSBANK marks prior to its registration and use of the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant has rights in its REGIONS and REGIONSBANK marks.
2. Respondent’s <regionscreditcard.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s REGIONS mark.
3. Respondent’s <regionsbnak.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s REGIONSBANK mark.
4. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
5. Respondent registered and used the domain names 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 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.
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 contends that it has rights in the REGIONS and REGIONSBANK marks. Complainant asserts that these marks are used in connection with banking, financial, credit card, and various other services. Complainant provides the Panel with evidence of its USPTO trademark registrations for the REGIONS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,881,600 registered February 28, 1995) and the REGIONSBANK mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,918,496 registered September 12, 1995). Panels have found that the registration of a mark with a trademark authority is clear evidence of rights in a mark. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Panels have held that these rights satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) regardless of where the mark is registered in relation to where the respondent operates or lives. See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the REGIONS and REGIONSBANK mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that the <regionscreditcard.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the REGIONS mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s addition of the descriptive terms “credit” and “card” and the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” fail to distinguish the <regionscreditcard.com> domain name from the REGIONS mark. See Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2005) (finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <regionscreditcard.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the REGIONS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the <regionsbnak.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the REGIONSBANK mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s transposition of two letters of the REGIONSBANK mark fails to negate a finding of confusing similarity. See Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”). Additionally, the Panel finds that Respondent’s addition of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant for the purposes of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. 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). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <regionsbnak.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the REGIONSBANK mark in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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 contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names. Complainant alleges that Respondent has never used any trade or service mark similar to the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names by which it may have become known by. Additionally, Complainant notes that the WHOIS record for the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names lists “Above.com Domain Privacy” as the domain name registrant and that this listing in no way reflects the disputed domain names or Complainant’s marks. Panels have previously held that the information available, including the WHOIS record, determines whether or not a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names to display links, under headings such as “Regions Bank” and “$100 PNC Banking Offer,” to websites affiliated with Complainant and Complainant’s competitors. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names 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. See Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has developed a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. Complainant provides evidence of Respondent being the respondent in a number of past UDRP disputes, some against Complainant, where the panels ordered the transfer of the domain name at issue to the respective complainant. See Etsy, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1404127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 30, 2011); see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1409588 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 1, 2011); see also Regions Asset Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1412693 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2011). The panel in Arai Helmet Americas, Inc. v. Goldmark, D2004-1028 (WIPO Jan. 22, 2005), held that, where a disputed domain name is registered to prevent a complainant from reflecting its mark in a domain name and where the respondent had been party to another Policy proceeding, the present disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by virtue of finding that Respondent has established a pattern of bad faith registrations and use.
Complainant argues that the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names are disruptive to Complainant’s business. Under headings such as “Mortgage Broker Banker” and “Bank of America® Card,” Complainant argues, Respondent links Internet users who visit the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names to Complainant’s competitors in the banking and finance industries. Panels have found that the display of links to competing websites is disruptive to the business of a complainant as it diverts Internet users away from the complainant. See 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)(iii) 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). As a result of the established precedent and Respondent’s actions, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names is disruptive to Complainant’s business ventures under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and thus demonstrates bad faith by Respondent.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names in order to attract Internet users to the disputed domain names by confusing Internet users into believing that the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names are affiliated with Complainant and then profiting from that confusion. Complainant asserts that the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names display links to Complainant’s competitors under headings such as “Capital One® Miles Card” and “10 Best – Reward Cards.” Complainant contends that some of the links also have headings, such as “Regions Bank” and “Regions Credit Card,” that increase the likelihood of confusion as to the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names’ affiliation with Complainant. Complainant continues to assert that the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names generate revenue for Respondent based on the hosting of the links and the Internet users diverted through them. Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) if it finds that Respondent registered and is using the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the disputed domain names. See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes).
Complainant argues that Respondent typosquatted Complainant’s REGIONSBANK mark to use in the <regionsbnak.com> domain name. Complainant argues that the disputed domain name only changes Complainant’s mark, save for the required gTLD, by the transposition of two letters, which Complainant claims is a mistake commonly made by Internet users when typing in domain names. Panels have found that typosquatting is strong evidence of bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <regionscreditcard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent had constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the REGIONS and REGIONSBANK marks prior to the registration and use of the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent had constructive knowledge by virtue of Complainant’s trademark registrations for its marks and that Respondent’s reference to Complainant in its links displayed on the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names’ resolving websites. Additionally, Complainant puts forth evidence of Respondent’s participation in previous UDRP disputes against Complainant and thus argues that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its marks before the registration of the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names. See Regions Asset Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1412693 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2011); see also Regions Asset Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1410264 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 16, 2011). While panels have previously held that constructive knowledge is not enough for a finding of bad faith, panels have determined that, where actual knowledge is demonstrated, the panel may find bad faith. See BMC Software, Inc. v. Dominic Anschutz, FA 1340892 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2010) (determining that constructive notice will usually not support a finding of bad faith); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has developed a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. Complainant provides evidence of Respondent being the respondent in a number of past UDRP disputes, some against Complainant, where the panels ordered the transfer of the domain name at issue to the respective complainant. See Etsy, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1404127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 30, 2011); see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1409588 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 1, 2011); see also Regions Asset Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1412693 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2011). The panel in Arai Helmet Americas, Inc. v. Goldmark, D2004-1028 (WIPO Jan. 22, 2005), held that, where a disputed domain name is registered to prevent a complainant from reflecting its mark in a domain name and where the respondent had been party to another Policy proceeding, the present disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by virtue of finding that Respondent has established a pattern of bad faith registrations and use.
Complainant argues that the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names are disruptive to Complainant’s business. Under headings such as “Mortgage Broker Banker” and “Bank of America® Card,” Complainant argues, Respondent links Internet users who visit the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names to Complainant’s competitors in the banking and finance industries. Panels have found that the display of links to competing websites is disruptive to the business of a complainant as it diverts Internet users away from the complainant. See 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)(iii) 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). As a result of the established precedent and Respondent’s actions, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names is disruptive to Complainant’s business ventures under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and thus demonstrates bad faith by Respondent.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names in order to attract Internet users to the disputed domain names by confusing Internet users into believing that the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names are affiliated with Complainant and then profiting from that confusion. Complainant asserts that the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names display links to Complainant’s competitors under headings such as “Capital One® Miles Card” and “10 Best – Reward Cards.” Complainant contends that some of the links also have headings, such as “Regions Bank” and “Regions Credit Card,” that increase the likelihood of confusion as to the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names’ affiliation with Complainant. Complainant continues to assert that the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names generate revenue for Respondent based on the hosting of the links and the Internet users diverted through them. Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) if it finds that Respondent registered and is using the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the disputed domain names. See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes).
Complainant argues that Respondent typosquatted Complainant’s REGIONSBANK mark to use in the <regionsbnak.com> domain name. Complainant argues that the disputed domain name only changes Complainant’s mark, save for the required gTLD, by the transposition of two letters, which Complainant claims is a mistake commonly made by Internet users when typing in domain names. Panels have found that typosquatting is strong evidence of bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <regionscreditcard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent had constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the REGIONS and REGIONSBANK marks prior to the registration and use of the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent had constructive knowledge by virtue of Complainant’s trademark registrations for its marks and that Respondent’s reference to Complainant in its links displayed on the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names’ resolving websites. Additionally, Complainant puts forth evidence of Respondent’s participation in previous UDRP disputes against Complainant and thus argues that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its marks before the registration of the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names. See Regions Asset Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1412693 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2011); see also Regions Asset Co. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1410264 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 16, 2011). While panels have previously held that constructive knowledge is not enough for a finding of bad faith, panels have determined that, where actual knowledge is demonstrated, the panel may find bad faith. See BMC Software, Inc. v. Dominic Anschutz, FA 1340892 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2010) (determining that constructive notice will usually not support a finding of bad faith); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <regionscreditcard.com> and <regionsbnak.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: June 20, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page