One Technologies, L.P. v. Zhichao Yang
Claim Number: FA1404001554290
Complainant is One Technologies, L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Lisa Normand Congleton of Haynes and Boone, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ascoresense.com>, <creditscoresence.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <freescoresence.com>, <scencescore.com>, <scensescore.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com>, <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresence360.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresense360.com>, <scoresensecredit.com>, <scoresensecreditreport.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresenseonline.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <yourscoresense.com>, <sensecreditscore.com>, <sensescores.com>, <sencescore.com>, <wwwsensescore.com>, <scoressence.com>, <wwwscorescense.com>, <wwwscoresence.com>, <otlscorescense.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The <scoredense.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, <scorwsense.com> domain names at issue are registered with Go China Domains, LLC.
The <scoresebse.com> domain name at issue is registered with Go Australia Domains, LLC.
The <scoresenae.com> domain name at issue is registered with Blue Razor Domains, LLC.
The <scorrsense.com> domain name at issue is registered with Go France Domains, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 15, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 16, 2014.
On April 16, 2014, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ascoresense.com>, <creditscoresence.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <freescoresence.com>, <scencescore.com>, <scensescore.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com> , <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresence360.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresense360.com>, <scoresensecredit.com>, <scoresensecreditreport.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresenseonline.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <yourscoresense.com>, <sensecreditscore.com>, <sensescores.com>, <sencescore.com>, <wwwsensescore.com>, <scoressence.com>, <wwwscorescense.com>, <wwwscoresence.com>, <otlscorescense.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.Com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, LLC 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 April 16, 2014, Go China Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <scoredense.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, and <scorwsense.com> domain names are registered with Go China Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Go China Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go China Domains, LLC 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 April 16, 2014, Go Australia Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <scoresebse.com> domain name is registered with Go Australia Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Australia Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Australia Domains, LLC 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 April 16, 2014, Blue Razor Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <scoresenae.com> domain name is registered with Blue Razor Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Blue Razor Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Blue Razor Domains, LLC 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 April 16, 2014, Go France Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <scorrsense.com> domain name is registered with Go France Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go France Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go France Domains, LLC 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 7, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 27, 2014 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@ascoresense.com, postmaster@creditscoresence.com, postmaster@cscoresense.com, postmaster@freescoresence.com, postmaster@scencescore.com, postmaster@scensescore.com, postmaster@scorcense.com, postmaster@scorcesence.com, postmaster@scorcesense.com, postmaster@scoredense.com, postmaster@scoreence.com, postmaster@scoreense.com, postmaster@scoreesence.com, postmaster@scoreesense.com, postmaster@scorence.com, postmaster@scorense.com, postmaster@scorensense.com, postmaster@scorersense.com, postmaster@scorescenes.com, postmaster@scorescens.com, postmaster@scorescnse.com, postmaster@scoreseanse.com, postmaster@scoresebse.com, postmaster@scoresece.com, postmaster@scoresecne.com, postmaster@scoreseence.com, postmaster@scoresemce.com, postmaster@scoresenae.com, postmaster@scoresenc.com, postmaster@scoresencce.com, postmaster@scoresence360.com, postmaster@scoresencer.com, postmaster@scoresences.com, postmaster@scoresencr.com, postmaster@scoresencse.com, postmaster@scoresencw.com, postmaster@scoresennce.com, postmaster@scoresennse.com, postmaster@scoresensa.com, postmaster@scoresensce.com, postmaster@scoresense360.com, postmaster@scoresensecredit.com, postmaster@scoresensecreditreport.com, postmaster@scoresensed.com, postmaster@scoresensee.com, postmaster@scoresensel.com, postmaster@scoresenseonline.com, postmaster@scoresensese.com, postmaster@scoresensor.com, postmaster@scoresensr.com, postmaster@scoresensw.com, postmaster@scoresenxe.com, postmaster@scoresesnse.com, postmaster@scoresnce.com, postmaster@scoresnece.com, postmaster@scoresrnce.com, postmaster@scoresrnse.com, postmaster@scoresscense.com, postmaster@scoreswnce.com, postmaster@scoreswnse.com, postmaster@scorresense.com, postmaster@scorrsence.com, postmaster@scorrsense.com, postmaster@scorscence.com, postmaster@scorscense.com, postmaster@scorssense.com, postmaster@scorwsense.com, postmaster@sscoresence.com, postmaster@sscoresense.com, postmaster@yourscoresense.com, postmaster@sensecreditscore.com, postmaster@sensescores.com, postmaster@sencescore.com, postmaster@wwwsensescore.com, postmaster@scoressence.com, postmaster@wwwscorescense.com, postmaster@wwwscoresence.com, postmaster@otlscorescense.com. Also on May 7, 2014, 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 May 29, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i. Complainant, One Technologies, L.P., is a Dallas, Texas-based provider of online marketing services and products in the direct-to-consumer credit monitoring industry.
ii. Complainant is the owner of a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the SCORESENSE mark (Reg. No. 3,874,726, registered November 9, 2010).
iii. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark.
i. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
ii. Respondent is not known and has never been known by the disputed domain names.
iii. Of the 78 disputed domain names, 73 resolve to pay-per-click or “link farm” pages, the vast majority of which feature links to financial services that are directly competitive with Complainant’s business.
iv. Each of the remaining five disputed domain names directs users to unknown number of various websites, which seem to rotate each time the page is refreshed.
i. Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
ii. Respondent is a serial cybersquatter.
iii. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to create confusion with Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark and to divert customers from Complainant’s legitimate site, for Respondent’s own commercial gain.
iv. The vast majority of the disputed domain names constitute typosquatting.
v. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SCORESENSE mark.
B. Respondent
1. Respondent has not submitted a response to this case.
2. Respondent registered all of the disputed domain names in 2012, the earliest being January 5, 2012.
Complainant established that it had rights in the mark contained in the disputed domain names. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected mark.
Respondent registered and used the disputed 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 is a Dallas, Texas-based provider of online marketing services and products in the direct-to-consumer credit monitoring industry. Complainant asserts that it is the owner of a trademark registration with the USPTO for the SCORESENSE mark (Reg. No. 3,874,726, registered November 9, 2010). See Complainant’s Exhibit 3. In Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005), the panel concluded that complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the SCORESENSE mark with the USPTO sufficiently proves that it has rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) regardless of where Respondent dwells.
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <ascoresense.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com>, <scoredense.com>, <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresebse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenae.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorrsense.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <scorwsense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <sensescores.com>, <sencescore.com>, <scoressence.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark. Complainant argues that the above-named disputed domain names contain common misspellings and typos wherein the disputed domain names differ from the SCORESENSE mark by only one or two characters. The Panel holds that Respondent’s misspelling of the SCORESENSE mark does not distinguish the disputed domain names from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive). The Panel notes that Respondent includes the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to each of the above disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s addition of a gTLD to Complainant’s mark does nothing to prevent a panel from finding confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (holding that attaching a gTLD is “unable to create a distinction capable of overcoming a finding of confusing similarity”). Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent’s <ascoresense.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com>, <scoredense.com>, <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresebse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenae.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorrsense.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <scorwsense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <sensescores.com>, <sencescore.com>, <scoressence.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark accordingly to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <creditscoresence.com>, <freescoresence.com>, <scoresensecredit.com>, <scoresensecreditreport.com>, <scoresenseonline.com>, <yourscoresense.com>, and <sensecreditscore.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark. Complainant argues that Respondent adds a generic term such as “credit,” “report,” “free,” or “your” to the SCORESENSE mark in the above-mentioned disputed domain name. The Panel determines that Respondent’s inclusion of a generic or descriptive term does nothing to differentiate the domain names from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel observes that Respondent has added the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s addition of a gTLD to the disputed domain names is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Starwood Capital Grp. Global LLC v. Resort Realty, FA 1043061 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 6, 2007) (“Furthermore, the addition of the generic top-level domain ‘.com’ does nothing to eliminate the confusing similarity, as a top-level domain is a requirement for all domain names.”). Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent’s <creditscoresence.com>, <freescoresence.com>, <scoresensecredit.com>, <scoresensecreditreport.com>, <scoresenseonline.com>, <yourscoresense.com>, and <sensecreditscore.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <scoresence360.com> and <scoresense360.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark. The Panel notes that Respondent adds the numeral “360” to the <scoresence360.com> and <scoresense360.com> domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s inclusion of a numeral to a mark does not negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that adding the suffixes "502" and "520" to the ICQ trademark does little to reduce the potential for confusion). The Panel observes that Respondent misspells the SCORESENSE mark in the <scoresence360.com> domain name. The Panel holds that Respondent’s misspelling of the SCORESENSE mark is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) determination. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive). Lastly, the Panel notes that Respondent adds the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain names. The Panel holds that Respondent’s inclusion of a gTLD to the domain names does nothing to distinguish the domain names from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Antigua Domains, FA 1073020 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2007) (“[T]he inclusion of the generic top-level domain ‘.com’ is inconsequential to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, as a top-level domain is required of all domain names.”). Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <scoresence360.com> and <scoresense360.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <otlscorescense.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark. Complainant claims that Respondent adds the letters “otl,” which is merely an acronym for Complainant’s business name. The Panel holds that Respondent’s inclusion of letters to a domain name does not negate a panel from finding confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Kelson Physician Partners, Inc. v. Mason, CPR003 (CPR 2000) (finding that <kelsonmd.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s federally registered service mark, KELSON). The Panel notes that Respondent misspells Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark by adding the letter “c” to the mark. The Panel determines that Respondent’s inclusion of an additional letter does not distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Valpak Direct Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., D2006-0714 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2006) (finding the <vallpak.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the VALPAK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Finally, the Panel observes that Respondent adds the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name. The Panel determines that Respondent’s addition of a gTLD is irrelevant according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (holding that attaching a gTLD is “unable to create a distinction capable of overcoming a finding of confusing similarity”). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <otlscorescense.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <wwwsensescore.com>, <wwwscorescense.com>, and <wwwscoresence.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark. The Panel observes that Respondent adds the prefix “www” to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark or a misspelled version of Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s inclusion of a “www” to a mark, as well as the misspelling of a mark, is inconsequential as to whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Register.com Inc. v. House, FA 167970 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 22, 2003) (finding the prefix “www” followed by the trademark with no period separating them did not distinguish the mark and was confusingly similar); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive). The Panel also agrees that transposing the words of the trademark, such as in the <wwwsensescore.com> domain name, does not avoid the confusing similarity. See NCRAS Mgmt., LP v. Cupcake City, D2000-1803 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2001) (finding the domain name <nationalrentalcar.com> confusingly similar to the mark NATIONAL CAR RENTAL and holding that “merely inverting the terms of a mark . . . is quite insufficient to dispel consumer confusion; the mark and the resulting domain name are simply too similar to each other”). The Panel also notes that Respondent added the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s inclusion of a gTLD to the domain names does not prevent a panel from finding confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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). Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent’s <wwwsensescore.com>, <wwwscorescense.com>, and <wwwscoresence.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <scencescore.com> and <scensescore.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark. The Panel notes that Respondent reverses the order of the words in the mark by putting the misspelled “scence” or “scense” before the word “score.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s inverting of words in a mark, as well as the misspelling of words in a mark, does nothing to distinguish the mark from the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Playboy Enters. v. Movie Name Co., D2001-1201 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2002) (finding the domain name <channelplayboy.com> confusingly similar to the mark THE PLAYBOY CHANNEL); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive). Finally, the Panel observes that Respondent adds the gTLD “.com” to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark in the disputed domain names. The Panel holds that Respondent’s addition of a gTLD to Complainant’s mark is irrelevant to a confusingly similar analysis pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See AOL Inc. v. Morgan, FA 1349260 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2010) (concluding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark). Thus, the Panel determines that Respondent’s <scencescore.com> and <scensescore.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark under 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 argues that Respondent is not known and has never been known by the disputed domain names. Complainant asserts that the WHOIS record does not provide any indication that Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. The Panel observes that the WHOIS information provides that “Zhichao Yang” is the registrant of the disputed domain names. See Complainant’s Exhibit 2. Moreover, Complainant contends that it has never consented to, licensed, or otherwise authorized Respondent’s use of Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark. In Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006), the panel concluded that 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 respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and complainant had not authorized respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant asserts that of Respondent’s 78 disputed domain names, the <ascoresense.com>, <creditscoresence.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <scencescore.com>, <scensescore.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com>, <scoredense.com>, <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresebse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenae.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresence360.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresensecredit.com>, <scoresensecreditreport.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresenseonline.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorrsense.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <scorwsense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <yourscoresense.com>, <sensecreditscore.com>, <sensescores.com>, <wwwsensescore.com>, <scoressence.com>, <wwwscorescense.com>, <wwwscoresence.com>, <otlscorescense.com> domain names resolve to pay-per-click or “link farm” pages, the vast majority of which feature links to financial services that are directly competitive with Complainant’s business. See Complainant’s Exhibit 14. Or more simply put, all but the <freescoresence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresense360.com>, and <sencescore.com> domain names resolve to hyperlink advertisement websites. The Panel observes that Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to pages featuring competing links such as “My Free Credit Score,” “Bad Credit Score Mortgage,” “Check Credit Score,” and more. Id. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s disputed domain names are used for the purpose of earning click-through revenues from consumers who are attempting to reach Complainant’s website. As the Panel finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to competing hyperlink directories, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not using the <ascoresense.com>, <creditscoresence.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <scencescore.com>, <scensescore.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com>, <scoredense.com>, <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresebse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenae.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresence360.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresensecredit.com>, <scoresensecreditreport.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresenseonline.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorrsense.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <scorwsense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <yourscoresense.com>, <sensecreditscore.com>, <sensescores.com>, <wwwsensescore.com>, <scoressence.com>, <wwwscorescense.com>, <wwwscoresence.com>, <otlscorescense.com> domain names for a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <freescoresence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresense360.com>, and <sencescore.com> domain names directs users to unknown number of various websites, which seem to rotate each time the page is refreshed. See Complainant’s Exhibit 15. Complainant claims that several of Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to Complainant’s own websites at <freescoreonline.com> and <freescore360.com>. See Complainant’s Exhibit 16. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s disputed domain names also resolve to the websites of Complainant’s competitors. See Complainant’s Exhibit 17. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to redirect to Complainant’s site or to the sites of Complainant’s competitors is not 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). See Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
Complainant contends that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter. Complainant alleges that the National Arbitration Forum has found Respondent to have registered and used disputed domain names in bad faith on twenty separate occasions. The Panel also notes that Respondent has registered 78 domain names including the SCORESENSE mark in the present case, showing a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Complainant also cites to the decisions in Sears Brands, LLC v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1488276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 8, 2013) and OS Asset, Inc. v. Yan/Yanli Li; Zhichao Yang, FA 1529354 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2013), cases where Respondent was ordered to transfer domain names. In Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000), the panel found that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the <ascoresense.com>, <creditscoresence.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <freescoresence.com>, <scencescore.com>, <scensescore.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com>, <scoredense.com>, <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresebse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenae.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresence360.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresense360.com>, <scoresensecredit.com>, <scoresensecreditreport.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresenseonline.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorrsense.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <scorwsense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <yourscoresense.com>, <sensecreditscore.com>, <sensescores.com>, <sencescore.com>, <wwwsensescore.com>, <scoressence.com>, <wwwscorescense.com>, <wwwscoresence.com>, <otlscorescense.com> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to create confusion with Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark and to divert customers from Complainant’s legitimate site, for Respondent’s own commercial gain. The Panel notes that Respondent is using the <ascoresense.com>, <creditscoresence.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <scencescore.com>, <scensescore.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com>, <scoredense.com>, <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresebse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenae.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresence360.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresensecredit.com>, <scoresensecreditreport.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresenseonline.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorrsense.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <scorwsense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <yourscoresense.com>, <sensecreditscore.com>, <sensescores.com>, <wwwsensescore.com>, <scoressence.com>, <wwwscorescense.com>, <wwwscoresence.com>, <otlscorescense.com> domain names to resolve to a competing hyperlink directory, while Respondent is using the <freescoresence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresense360.com>, and <sencescore.com> domain names to resolve to competing websites. See Complainant’s Exhibits 14 and 16. Complainant states that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to confuse consumers and to generate revenue, which shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The Panel agrees and determines that Respondent has registered and is using the <ascoresense.com>, <creditscoresence.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <freescoresence.com>, <scencescore.com>, <scensescore.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com>, <scoredense.com>, <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresebse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenae.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresence360.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresense360.com>, <scoresensecredit.com>, <scoresensecreditreport.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresenseonline.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorrsense.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <scorwsense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <yourscoresense.com>, <sensecreditscore.com>, <sensescores.com>, <sencescore.com>, <wwwsensescore.com>, <scoressence.com>, <wwwscorescense.com>, <wwwscoresence.com>, <otlscorescense.com> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the <ascoresense.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com>, <scoredense.com>, <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresebse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenae.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorrsense.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <scorwsense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <sensescores.com>, <sencescore.com>, <scoressence.com> domain names constitutes typosquatting. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s above-mentioned domain names include only a common misspelling of Complainant’s SCORESENSE mark. The Panel notes that previous panels have traditionally found typosquatting where there is a disputed domain name representing a typographical error with respect to a complainant’s mark. See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting of the <ascoresense.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com>, <scoredense.com>, <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresebse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenae.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorrsense.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <scorwsense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <sensescores.com>, <sencescore.com>, <scoressence.com> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant claims that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SCORESENSE mark, which is evidenced by Respondent’s use of a mark that is coined by Complainant and has no other meaning in the English language. Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's SCORESENSE mark and rights and therefore determines that Respondent registered the disputed domain names 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 <ascoresense.com>, <creditscoresence.com>, <cscoresense.com>, <freescoresence.com>, <scencescore.com>, <scensescore.com>, <scorcense.com>, <scorcesence.com>, <scorcesense.com>, <scoredense.com>, <scoreence.com>, <scoreense.com>, <scoreesence.com>, <scoreesense.com>, <scorence.com>, <scorense.com>, <scorensense.com>, <scorersense.com>, <scorescenes.com>, <scorescens.com>, <scorescnse.com>, <scoreseanse.com>, <scoresebse.com>, <scoresece.com>, <scoresecne.com>, <scoreseence.com>, <scoresemce.com>, <scoresenae.com>, <scoresenc.com>, <scoresencce.com>, <scoresence360.com>, <scoresencer.com>, <scoresences.com>, <scoresencr.com>, <scoresencse.com>, <scoresencw.com>, <scoresennce.com>, <scoresennse.com>, <scoresensa.com>, <scoresensce.com>, <scoresense360.com>, <scoresensecredit.com>, <scoresensecreditreport.com>, <scoresensed.com>, <scoresensee.com>, <scoresensel.com>, <scoresenseonline.com>, <scoresensese.com>, <scoresensor.com>, <scoresensr.com>, <scoresensw.com>, <scoresenxe.com>, <scoresesnse.com>, <scoresnce.com>, <scoresnece.com>, <scoresrnce.com>, <scoresrnse.com>, <scoresscense.com>, <scoreswnce.com>, <scoreswnse.com>, <scorresense.com>, <scorrsence.com>, <scorrsense.com>, <scorscence.com>, <scorscense.com>, <scorssense.com>, <scorwsense.com>, <sscoresence.com>, <sscoresense.com>, <yourscoresense.com>, <sensecreditscore.com>, <sensescores.com>, <sencescore.com>, <wwwsensescore.com>, <scoressence.com>, <wwwscorescense.com>, <wwwscoresence.com>, <otlscorescense.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: June 10, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page