Mason Companies, Inc. v. Katona Huba
Claim Number: FA1311001527913
Complainant is Mason Companies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by William D. Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Katona Huba (“Respondent”), Romania.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <shoemall.ro>, registered with Labs Ro SRL.
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.
Beatrice Onica Jarka as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 1, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 1, 2013. The Complaint was received in both Romanian and English.
On November 7, 2013, Labs Ro SRL confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <shoemall.ro> domain name is registered with Labs Ro SRL and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Labs Ro SRL has verified that Respondent is bound by the Labs Ro SRL 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 November 15, 2013, the Forum served the Romanian language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Romanian language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 5, 2013 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@shoemall.ro. Also on November 15, 2013, the Romanian language 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 5, 2013.
Timely Additional Submissions were received from both Complainant on December 10, 2013 and Respondent on December 16, 2013. Both additional Submissions do comply with Supplemental Rule 7.
On December 16, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Beatrice Onica Jarka 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
1. Complainant’s business has provided retail services in connection with footwear and clothing items since at least as early as 1997.
2. Complainant has rights in the SHOEMALL, SHOE MALL, and SHOEMALL.COM marks in relation to computerized online retail services and mail order catalog services in the clothing and footwear industry. Complainant owns the following registrations for the SHOEMALL mark:
United States Patent and trademark Office (“USPTO”):
a. Reg. No. 2,701,366 registered March 25, 2003.
b. Reg. No. 2,992,709 registered September 6, 2005.
c. Reg. No. 3,021,263 registered November 29, 2005.
Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”)
d. Reg. No. TMA736,423 registered March 17, 2009.
European Union’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”)
e. Reg. No. 858,803 registered December 22, 1999.
3. Complainant has continuously used the SHOEMALL mark since the date of its first application filing in 1997.
4. The United States Trademark trial and Appeal Board previously held that Complainant’s SHOE MALL mark in connection with computerized online retail services in the field of footwear and clothing is suggestive and thus inherently distinctive, and not merely descriptive of the associated services.
5. Respondent’s <shoemall.ro> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark.
a. Respondent adds the Romanian country-code “ro.”
6. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
a. Respondent has no statutory or common law trademark rights in the SHOEMALL mark.
b. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
c. Respondent is known by “Katona Huba.”
d. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its SHOEMALL mark.
e. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
i. Respondent uses the disputed domain name for commercial gain by placing advertisements and product offerings on the resolving website.
ii. Respondent’s resolving website offered the same products as Complainant.
iii. Respondent also used the disputed domain name in connection with a Facebook page resolving from <http://www.facebook.com/shoemall.ro>.
iv. Respondent has removed all content from the resolving website.
7. Respondent’s disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
a. Respondent’s diversion of traffic to a competitor indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
i. Respondent directly competes with Complainant.
b. Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
c. Respondent had constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights
1. Respondent reserved the disputed domain name in order to use it by means of its alleged own company Mall Expert SRL, which the Respondent presented as an Intervener in these proceedings.
2. The Intervener acquired trademark rights in the SHOEMALL.RO mark based on the request made with the Romanian Office for Inventions and Trademarks (“OSIM”).
3. The Intervener has enjoyed protection on Romanian territory since February 4, 2011.
4. Respondent does not deny Complainant’s rights in their SHOEMALL mark, but the Intervener holds a similar yet different trademark from that of Complainant’s.
5. Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
6. Respondent did not try to use Complainant’s reputation on their own trademark.
7. Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark is not well known in Romania.
8. Intervener’s commercial activities were limited to Romanian territory.
9. Respondent did not use the disputed domain name in bad faith, because bad faith cannot exist where there are no unfair benefits resulting from the use of the domain name.
10. Respondent states that there is identity between its products and Complainant’s, but only in terms of their type. Respondent claims that it does not sell the same shoes as Complainant.
11. Respondent did not intent to attract Complainant’s customers.
12. Respondent did not remove or delete content from its website, or redirect it to other websites.
13. Respondent cannot access Complainant’s website.
1. Respondent admits to the similarity between Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark and Respondent’s SHOEMALL.RO mark.
2. Complainant’s prior registration for SHOEMALL negates any rights Respondent may have in the SHOEMALL.RO mark.
3. Application for the SHOEMALL.RO trademark was made almost three years after the disputed domain name was registered.
4. Respondent has no rights in the SHOEMALL.RO trademark.
5. Complainant’s CTM registration for SHOEMALL has full effect in Romania dating back to June 23, 1998.
6. A Respondent’s foreign trademark registration, secured after the disputed domain name is registered, cannot establish legitimate rights.
7. Respondent provides no justification for using the SHOEMALL.RO mark in association with its business.
8. Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark was featured in search results prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, indicating that Respondent could have searched “SHOEMALL” before registering the SHOEMALL.RO domain name.
9. Complainant and Respondent operate in overlapping territories.
10. The business developed under the disputed domain name is accessible to consumers in the United States.
11. Respondent had constructive and actual notice of Complainant and its mark.
a. Complainant is a famous online shoe distributor.
b. Respondent registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
12. Respondent’s choice of domain name has no connection to Respondent other than to infringe on Complainant’s rights.
D. The Respondent, by its Additional Submission contended that:
1. The Respondent has rights and legitimate interests with respect to the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in good faith.
a. The Respondent has proven that the Intervener Mall Expert SRL asked for the registration of the trade mark almost 3 years (and we even obtained the registration) before being notified by the Complainant.
b. The rules for registering a trademark are more drastic than those related to the registration of a domain name. Nonetheless a state authority from Romania decided that one may register in a country of the European Union a similar mark, regardless of the distinctiveness of the communitarian mark already registered.
c. The territory (legislation) that the Respondent and the Intervener understood to refer to is provided by the extent of the Intervener’s right to the trademark (and domain) which is exclusively on the territory of Romania. Respondent is not interested in any similar mark or domain to which a different jurisdiction is applied, and Respondent had no knowledge of any similar marks.
d. Even since 2011, the Respondent and the Intervener were known by the disputed domain name.
e. The Complainant and Respondent are both holding similar – but not identical – domains (we did not deny and we never had the intention to deny this issue). However, Complainant and Respondent’s legitimate interest concerns different geographical areas and therefore there is no real conflict (because, although there is the appearance of a conflict between domains, everything sums up to such appearance and one cannot consider further on that there is any conflict between the business of the parties involved).
2. The association of similar domains and business is not an absolute presumption and the Complainant must prove that the Respondent and the Intervener breached their rights by using their name and reputation. SHOEMALL.RO is not a notorious domain; it needs permanent advertising to stay in the attention of the consumers and it is probably similarly notorious in Romania as SHOEMALL.COM in USA. The Complainant did not provide evidence of its notoriety 6 years ago, and the Respondent couldn’t have known about the Complainant on such moment.
3. In these proceedings an Intervener and agreement between the Intervener and Respondent (in their capacity as holder of the domain, respectively of the trademark rights) exits, by which each of them offered to the other the rights of using the domain and the mark.
The Respondent has not proven any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and has registered and used the disputed domain name 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.
Language of the Proceedings
The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Romanian. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Romanian language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, as Respondent submitted a Response in the English language, determines that the remainder of the proceedings is to be conducted in English.
Preliminary Procedural Question - position of the Intervener in these Proceedings
By its Response, the Respondent asserts that the Response is submitted and undertaken jointly by the Respondent and the Intervener based on an alleged link existing between the two and the mutual exchange of legal rights, as the Respondent is the shareholder of the Intervener in the person of the company: SC Mall Expert SRL.
The only evidences submitted in these proceedings by the Respondent are: a loan for use contract between the Respondent and the Mall Expert SRL dated March 16, 2009 and translated, but not dated, by an authorized translator Busuioc Lavinia Madalina; a decision dated September 9, 2013, of the Romanian State Office for inventions; and State Marks on acceptance of registration for Mall Expert SRL of the verbal trademark Shoemall.ro. The Response is signed by the Respondent solely and no power of attorney is provided for the Respondent by the alleged intervener.
The UDRP Rules provide at paragraph 1 – Definitions, that Respondent in the UDRP procedures means “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated”. The Complaint is submitted against the holder of the domain name registration. Considering that no further evidences have been submitted by the Respondent as to the standing of the Intervener in these proceedings and as to the relationship between the Respondent and Intervener, this Panel decides that these proceedings unroll exclusively between the Complainant and the Holder of the disputed domain name - the Respondent, and that the Intervener does not hold any standing in these proceedings.
Complainant asserts that Complainant’s business has provided retail services in connection with footwear and clothing items since at least as early as 1997. Complainant additionally argues that it has rights in the SHOEMALL, SHOE MALL, and SHOEMALL.COM marks in relation to computerized online retail services and mail order catalog services in the clothing and footwear industry. Complainant provides evidence of its ownership for the following registrations for the SHOEMALL mark by providing its registrations with the USPTO, CIPO, and OHIM:
USPTO
Reg. No. 2,701,366 registered March 25, 2003.
Reg. No. 2,992,709 registered September 6, 2005.
Reg. No. 3,021,263 registered November 29, 2005.
CIPO
Reg. No. TMA736,423 registered March 17, 2009.
OHIM
Reg. No. 858,803 registered December 22, 1999.
Complainant contends in its additional submission that Complainant’s CTM registration for SHOEMALL has full effect in Romania as of June 23, 1998. The Panel notes that based on previous UDRP decisions, panels have generally found that a complaint does not need to provide evidence of a registration for a trademark in the country in which a respondent conducts business. 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). The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the SHOEMALL mark through its various registraitons in multiple countries. See Devitt Ins. Servs. Ltd. v. Stevens, FA 1257387 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 21, 2009) (“The Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the DEVITT mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registration with the OHIM.”); see also Dixie Consumer Prods. LLC v. Private Whois dixiecup.com, FA 1419529 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 27, 2012) (finding that complainant’s trademark registrations with a number of trademark authorities around the world, including with the CIPO and USPTO, “successfully proves a complainant has rights in a mark . . .”).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <shoemall.ro> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant explains that the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board previously held that Complainant’s SHOE MALL mark is inherently distinctive and not merely descriptive in connection with computerized online retail services in the field of footwear and clothing, and retail catalog services in the field of footwear and clothing. See Exhibit 4. Complainant states that Respondent merely adds the Romanian country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “ro.” Complainant alleges in its additional submission that Respondent admits to the similarity between Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark and Respondent’s disputed domain name. Previous panels have found that adding a country code to a domain name is a variation that is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a given mark. See Europcar International SA v. New Media Research in Romania SRL, FA 123906 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (determining that the addition of a Romanian country-code of “.ro” is irrelevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) identical analysis, as a top-level domain is required of all domain names).
The Panel therefore, concludes that Respondent’s <shoemall.ro> domain name is identical to Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
According to UDRP practice, the 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.”).
This Panel has considered the argument of Respondent, that a dispute exists between the trademarks held by the Complainant and the trademark held apparently by the company Mall Expert SRL, but considering the framework and limits of UDRP, this Panel cannot decide anything except the dispute between the Complainant and the Respondent who holds a domain name which replicates the Complainant’s trademark and is used with the Respondent’s agreement by a competitor of the Complainant. The dispute between the two trademarks may be subject to specific court procedures under the registration of the shoemall.ro trademark law, and it is out of this Panel’s jurisdiction.
Moreover, in the opinion of this Panel, the timing of the trademark application by the company Mall Expert SRL for shoemall.ro has significance in these proceedings as regards the lack of rights and legitimate interests of the Respondent, considering that it had been made almost three years after the registration of the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent.
Regarding the Respondent’s claims that its commercial activity was limited to Romanian territory and that is the reason Respondent did not apply for a Community trade mark reservation in the European Union, the Panel notes that it is obvious that the Respondent is not aware of the effects of trademark registration at European Union level and the impact of such registration on further application of the trademark registration at national level. On the other side the use of the disputed domain name, with the agreement of the Respondent according to the Loan for use agreement, is indicative that the disputed domain name is used for competing activities to those of the Complainant, which on internet could be accessed virtually from anywhere in the world.
Therefore, limited to the framework of the UDRP and considering the evidences in these proceedings, according to the WHOIS information the Respondent is known by “Katona Huba” and he has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use its SHOEMALL mark.
Previous panels have found that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name if there is no evidence on the record or in the WHOIS information indicating that such a relationship exists. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). The Panel agrees in this respect, that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii). Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for commercial gain by placing advertisements and product offerings on the website resolving from Respondent’s <shoemall.ro> domain name . Complainant further indicates that Respondent’s resolving website offered the same products as Complainant. The Panel notes in this sense, Exhibit 7 to the Complaint displaying the website that resolves from Respondent’s <shoemall.ro> domain name. The Panel sees that Respondent’s resolving website features the heading “Shoemall Online Shoes” with a paragraph describing Respondent’s alleged business, and a paragraph instructing Internet users on the ordering procedure. Previous panels have found that using a disputed domain name to resolve to a website that competes with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. 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). The Panel finds in this sense that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that also sells shoes is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant provides that Respondent also uses the disputed domain name in connection with a Facebook page resolving from < facebook.com/shoemall.ro>. The Panel notes in this sense Exhibit 8 displaying the Facebook page associated with the <shoemall.ro> domain name. The Panel observes that the Shoemall.ro Facebook page displays a picture of a shoe inside the SHOEMALL mark. The Panel also sees that the Facebook page was started December 27, 2010. Previous panels have found that using a disputed domain name to resolve to a competing website or a website that is not related to a complainant’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name. See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site). The Panel concludes therefore that Respondent’s use of the Facebook page with the name “Shoemall.ro” is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel concludes that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the <shoemall.ro> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a) (ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant claims that Respondent is diverting Internet traffic to a competing website. Complainant contends that the advertisements for shoes on Respondent’s resolving website compete with Complainant’s business. Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The Panel agrees that the use of this domain name to promote competing goods is evidence of a Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) commercial disruption. See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). The Panel agrees and concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant suggests that Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant argues that Respondent profited from its commercial use of Complainant’s mark and the intentional deception to Internet users looking for Complainant’s business. Complainant points out that Respondent brands its website with Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark. Complainant argues in its additional submission that Respondent and Complainant’s business are in overlapping territories, and that Internet users from the United States are able to access Respondent’s disputed website. See Complainant’s Additional Submission, at Exhibit A. On the other side, the Respondent contends that Respondent only offers the same type of product as Complainant. Respondent asserts that it does not sell the same shoes as Complainant. Respondent argues that it is “natural” to sell shoes under the name “shoemall.” Moreover, the Respondent claims that it did not register or use the disputed domain name in bad faith because it did not use the disputed domain name for a benefit. Respondent argues that such a benefit can only come from a market that knows the domain name or trademark. Respondent claims that Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark is not known in Romania. Respondent argues that Complainant has provided no evidence of an Internet user accidentally accessing Respondent’s website when searching for Complainant’s business.
Considering the submissions of both parties, the Panel notices that conducting a search on the Internet for “shoemall” the search returns 381,000 results and for “shoemall.com” 1,460,000 results, which most refers to the Complainant. For an average internet user, the disputed domain name could be easily confused with the Complainant’s trademarks and business and the internet users could be easily attracted to a website offering competing goods or services. Previous panels have found bad faith where a respondent uses a disputed domain name to attract Internet users to a website offering competing goods or services. See Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) (“Respondent registered and used the <my-seasons.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) because Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the MYSEASONS mark for commercial benefit by diverting Internet users to the <thumbgreen.com> website, which sells competing goods and services.”). The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SHOEMALL mark. Complainant argues that the offering of products that compete with Complainant at the resolving website indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights. Complainant also states that there is an obvious connection between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark. Complainant argues in its additional submission that Complainant’s SHOEMALL mark was featured in search results prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, indicating that Respondent could have searched “SHOEMALL” before registering the SHOEMALL.RO domain name. Although panels have not generally regarded constructive notice to be sufficient for a finding of bad faith, the Panel finds nevertheless that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights and therefore determine that 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").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <shoemall.ro> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant
Beatrice Onica Jarka Panelist
Dated: December 30, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page