Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. jia ling / chen hao
Claim Number: FA1205001445913
Complainant is Watts Water Technologies Inc. (“Complainant”), Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is jia ling / chen hao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <asianwatts.com>, registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited d/b/a WebNic.cc.
The undersigned certifies he 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 May 25, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 25, 2012.
On May 29, 2012, Web Commerce Communications Limited d/b/a WebNic.cc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <asianwatts.com> domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited d/b/a WebNic.cc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Web Commerce Communications Limited d/b/a WebNic.cc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Web Commerce Communications Limited d/b/a WebNic.cc 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 29, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 18, 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@asianwatts.com. Also on May 29, 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 22, 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 that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Trademark/Service Mark Information:
Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations in the United States, Canada and China that consists of the word WATTS. These registrations are referred to hereafter as “Complainant’s Marks” and include:
[i]. WATTS for ball valves, butterfly valves, gate valves, globe valves, check valves, back pressure valves and tempering valves, water pressure regulators (valves), (SAIC Reg. No. 856788);
[ii]. WATTS & Device for ball valves, butterfly valves, gate valves, globe valves, check valves, back pressure valves and tempering valves, water pressure regulators (valves), (SAIC Reg. No. 856789)
[iii]. WATTS for pressure regulator safety devices; namely, feed water regulators, pressure regulators, damper regulator valves, reducing valves, relief valves, pressure and vacuum valves, boiler water feeders, and low water cut-offs (U.S. Reg. No. 0563758);
[iv]. WATTS for relief valves; vacuum breakers; backflow preventors; pressure reducing valves; shut-off valves; ball valves; strainers; flow checks; trap primers; purge and balance valves; by-pass control valves ; all not including air line regulators, air line filters, air line lubricators or air line equipment of any kind (U.S. Reg. No. 1,150860);
[v]. WATTS PREMIER for computerized on-line ordering, retail services and customer services in the field of water purification and filtration systems (U.S. Reg. No. 2,810,455);
[vi]. WATTS PURE WATER for water treatment units, water treatment kits, disinfection kits and faucets (U.S. Reg. No. 2,846,569);
[vii]. WATTS PURE WATER for water treatment equipment for domestic and industrial use, water treatment kits and accessories and faucets (CIPO Reg. No. TMA620389);
[viii]. W WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES for computerized on-line ordering and retail services in the field of plumbing supplies, water purification and filtration systems and customer services in the field of installation, maintenance and design of water purification and filtration systems(CIPO Reg. No. TMA650433);
[ix]. WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES for computerized on-line ordering and retail services in the field of plumbing supplies, water purification and filtration systems and customer services in the field of installation, maintenance and design of water purification and filtration systems (CIPO Reg. No. TMA650510) and;
[x]. WATTS for computerized on-line ordering and retail services in the field of plumbing supplies, water purification and filtration systems and customer services in the field of installation, maintenance and design of water purification and filtration systems (CIPO Reg. No. TMA696954).
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
Complainant Watts Water Technologies Inc. (NYSE: WTS, hereinafter referred to as “Watts”) was founded in 1874 by Joseph Watts and is headquartered in North Andover, Massachusetts. During Watts’ early days, Complainant manufactured pressure reducing valves to regulate steam and relief valves to ensure safe operation of water heaters and boilers. Today, Complainant has grown into an international manufacturer of Innovative Water Solutions for the plumbing & heating, and water quality markets.
Watt’s has been on the international market since the 1960’s, first opening manufacturing plants in Canada and the United Kingdom. Since then Watts has greatly expanded its international presence including the formation of its first joint venture in Tianjin, China in 1994. Today, Watts’ European and Chinese operations have expanded significantly and constitute a significant portion of Watts’ total revenue.
Watts Water Technologies brands include Watts, Watts Premier, Watts Radiant, and numerous other brands in North America, Asia and Europe which can be found at their website at:
http://www.watts.com/ http://www.wattswater.com/_brands/northAmerica http://www.wattswater.com/_brands/europe/watts_industries http://www.wattswater.com/_brands/asia/watts_china
Complainant’s websites have been well received, in fact, according to recent statics from Compete.com, Watt’s primary website is visited by more than 130,000 unique visitors per month.
In summary, Complainant’s brand is well recognized and respected worldwide in their industry, clearly evident by last year’s sales in excess of 1.6 billion dollars.
Complainant owns the Marks for which it has obtained numerous trademark registrations. None of these registrations have been abandoned, cancelled or revoked.
Complainant has made a significant investment to advertise and promote the Complainant’s Marks worldwide in media and the Internet over the years. Based on its extensive use and federal trademark registrations, Complainant owns the exclusive right to use the Complainant’s Marks for retail services in the field of valves, water purification and filtration systems.
a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); UDRP Policy ¶4(a)(i)):
[i]. By virtue of its federal trademark and/or service mark registrations, Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Mark. See, e.g., United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, FA 1036202 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 30, 2007) (“Panels have long recognized Complainant’s registration of a mark with a trademark authority is sufficient to confer rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)”).
[ii]. When comparing the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant’s Mark, the relevant comparison to be made is between only the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s Mark. Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 (finding that the top-level domain, such as “.net” or “.com”, does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 0153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“[t]he addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”)
[iii]. The Disputed Domain Name contains the entirety of Complainant’s Mark, WATTS, and does nothing to distinct itself from Complainant’s website or Mark. It has been held that when a Respondent’s domain encapsulates Complainant’s Mark entirely it is identical or confusingly similar. Moreover, the mere addition of generic short words or letters to a trademark does not create a distinct mark. This is illustrated in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, FA 0914942 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 21, 2007). The Panel found that the <dishdirectv.com> domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety and only adds the generic word ‘dish.’ Prefixing ‘directv’ with the generic word ‘dish’ does not prevent a finding of confusingly similarity under Policy ¶4(a)(i).” The Panel held that the domain is “likely to cause confusion among customers searching for Complainant’s goods and services.” Similarly, in Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction, Inc. See also Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. S G & Delmonte-Asia.com, D2001-0432 (WIPO May 22, 2001) (finding that the domain names <sunkistgrowers.org>, <sunkistgrowers.net> and <sunkistasia.com> are confusingly similar to complainant’s registered SUNKIST mark and identical to complainant’s common law SUNKIST GROWERS mark).
b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name for the following reasons (UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); UDRP Policy ¶4(a)(ii)):
[i]. Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. See Policy, ¶4(c)(ii). See Whois record for the Disputed Domain Name. Where, as here, “the WHOIS information suggests Respondent is known as” an entity other than the trademark associated with Complainant, and Complainant has not “licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating Complainant’s… mark,” a Panel should find that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, FA 1036202 (Nat. Arb. Forum August 30, 2007).
[ii]. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent sells copies of Complainant’s products. The products sold by the Respondent directly compete with Complainant’s own offerings. The Respondent has included the Complainant’s “WATTS” mark in both the name of its company (USA WATTS VALVE GROUP CORP.) and the disputed domain name. The term “WATTS”, in any language, is not a natural term used to describe valves, and the Respondent’s inclusion of the term is a direct effort to take advantage of the fame of the Complainant’s brand. Selling a competing good and using Complainant’s own famous brand name, without authorization to do so, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks); see also Nike, Inc. v. Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services where the respondent used the complainant’s mark without authorization to attract Internet users to its website, which offered both the complainant’s products and those of the complainant’s competitors).
[iii]. Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way.
[iv]. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s Marks in a domain name.
[v]. The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name was on December 8, 2011, which is after Complainant’s registration of WATTS.COM on August 21, 1995.
[vi]. The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name was December 8, 2011, which is significantly after Complainant’s first use in commerce as specified in their relevant registration with the USPTO, CIPO and SAIC.
c) The domain name should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith for the following reasons (UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); UDRP Policy ¶4(a)(iii)):
[i]. The Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has purposefully registered a closely similar domain name (i.e. incorporating a geographical term where the Complainant does business) with the Complainant’s Mark with the intent to disrupt the business of the Complainant by diverting Internet users to a website that offered services that compete with those offered by the Complainant. This meets the requirements of bad faith registration and use under the UDRP Policy ¶4(a)(iii) sub- paragraph (iii) and (iv).
[ii]. Respondent has caused the website reachable by the Disputed Domain Name to display Complainant’s Marks spelled correctly. This serves as further evidence of bad faith intent because it removes any doubt as to whether or not the Disputed Domain Name was intentionally designed to improperly capitalize on Complainant’s famous Marks. Screenshots of the website reachable through the Disputed Domain Name, which show the usage of the correctly spelled Marks have been provided for the Panel along with screenshots of the Complainant’s website reachable through Complainant’s domain name, WATTS.COM.
[iii]. Complainant and the WATTS brand are known internationally. Complainant has marketed and sold services using the Complainant’s Marks since 1874. Indeed, by registration of the term “WATTS” and “ASIAN” the Respondent has demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the Complainant’s brands and business. Thus, it is “not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of” the Complainant’s brands at the time the Domain Name was registered. See Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (February 18, 2000). Stated differently, where a domain name is “so obviously connected with such a well- known name and products,” “its very use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith.” See Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226 (May 17, 2000).
[iv]. Respondent was obviously aware of Complainant’s trademark rights. The Disputed Domain Name not only contains a geographical indication in connection with Complainant’s Mark but, Respondent has listed in the Whois the very city (Tianjin, China) where Complainant initially formed its first joint venture. Respondent’s website and use of the Disputed Domain Name has been disguised as being owned and operated by a Chinese company containing the Complainants own brand, WATTS; selling the same products and services; displaying photos of competing products resulting in Respondent’s commercial gain. This constitutes bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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 claims it owns the exclusive rights to use the WATTS mark for retail services in the field of valves, water purification and filtration systems pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). Previous panels have held evidence of trademark registrations with the USPTO and other national trademark authorities for a given mark is sufficient to establish a complainant’s rights in a given mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA 681239 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) (finding that where the complainant had submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, “such evidence establishes complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).”); see also Digi-Key Corp. v. Bei jing ju zhong cheng dian zi ji shu you xian gong si, FA 1213758 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2008) (“The Panel finds these registrations [with the USPTO and SAIC] sufficiently establish Complainant’s rights in its DIGI-KEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).”). Complainant presents the Panel with evidence of its registration for its WATTS mark with the SAIC (e.g., Reg. No. 856,788 registered July 21, 1996); USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,810,455 registered February 3, 2004); and CIPO (e.g., Reg. No. TMA696,954 September 20, 2007). This Panel agrees with the previous panels and finds Complainant has adequately established its rights in the WATTS mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <asianwatts.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s WATTS mark. Complainant argues the <asianwatts.com> domain name contains Complainant’s WATTS mark in its entirety with the addition of a generic short word and the addition of a generic top-level (“gTLD”) “.com.” Respondent’s <asianwatts.com> domain name adds the geographical term “asian” to Complainant’s WATTS mark, further describing where Complainant does business. Previous panels have held variances such as adding a gTLD and geographical terms to a complainant’s mark are generally insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a Complainant’s registered mark. See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Oxford Univ., FA 114654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2002) (“Neither the addition of an ordinary descriptive word nor a geographic qualifier transform Respondent’s domain name into separate and distinct marks for the purpose of a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis.”). This Panel agrees with this precedent and finds Respondent’s <asianwatts.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WATTS mark pursuant to 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 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 <asianwatts.com> domain name. Former panels have held when a respondent’s WHOIS information differs from the disputed domain name, a respondent is not commonly known by the 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.”). Currently, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “jia ling,” which is different from the <asianwatts.com> domain name. Respondent does not provide any evidence it is commonly known by the <asianwatts.com> domain name. Based on this showing, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <asianwatts.com> domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Respondent is not related to Complainant in any way and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s registration of the<asianwatts.com> domain name occurred several years after Complainant’s trademark was registered.
Complainant claims Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the <asianwatts.com> domain name. Intending to divert customers away from a complainant’s products or services by offering products that directly compete with a complainant is 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 Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”). Complainant claims Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to sell counterfeit copies of Complainant’s products. Such products by necessity directly compete with Complainant’s own business. Based on this uncontested information, Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent is purposefully using Complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant’s business and compete with its sales. Redirecting Internet users to a site selling products that compete with a complainant disrupts a complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See Jerie v. Burian, FA 795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <sportlivescore.com> domain name in order to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because the respondent was maintaining a website in direct competition with the complainant); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business). Respondent is disrupting complainant’s business by diverting Internet users to a website offering services which compete with Complainant’s services. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business and thus constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii).
Complainant argues Respondent has shown bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). Respondent has done this by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark through its confusingly similar domain name, thereby misleading Internet users and diverting Internet traffic to the resolving website. Respondent is likely gaining commercially from its resolving website because Respondent is selling counterfeit products directly competing with Complainant. Respondent acted in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) when it registered and uses the disputed domain name for the purpose of attracting consumers and financially profiting by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark); see also Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. v. Clelland, FA 198018 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“Respondent used <land-cruiser.com> to advertise its business, which sold goods in competition with Complainant. This establishes bad faith as defined in Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”).
Complainant argues it is inconceivable Respondent could have registered the <asianwatts.com> domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark because of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's WATTS mark. By registering Complainant’s WATTS mark in connection with the geographical term “asian,” Respondent has demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the Complainant’s mark and business history (because Complainant’s first joint venture occurred in Asia).
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 the <asianwatts.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: June 27, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page