Michelin North America, Inc. v. Midwest Auto Repair
Claim Number: FA1408001575887
Complainant is Michelin North America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Neil M. Batavia of Dority & Manning, Attorneys at Law, P.A., South Carolina, USA. Respondent is Midwest Auto Repair (“Respondent”), Indiana, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bfgoodrichtire.com> and <michelintire.com>, registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his 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 August 19, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 21, 2014.
On August 20, 2014, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bfgoodrichtire.com> and <michelintire.com> domain names are registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 August 21, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 10, 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@bfgoodrichtire.com, postmaster@michelintire.com. Also on August 21, 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 September 17, 2014, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Trademark/Service Mark Information: ICANN Rule 3(b)(viii).
The Complainant, Michelin North America, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets tires for several vehicle industries, and is involved in vehicle racing and rallies.
The Complainant and related entities have a business presence in more than 170 countries worldwide, supply a range of thousands of products, and produce more than 190 million tires yearly accounting for 17.2% of the global market.
Complainant holds registrations for the BFGOODRICH mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (including Reg. No. 1087694, issued March 21, 1978 and Reg. No. 1376883, issued January 7, 1986) for goods in International Class 012 relating to tires and other international classes related to other goods. Complainant also holds registrations for the MICHELIN mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (including Reg. No. 0892045, issued June 2, 1970) for goods in International Class 012 relating to pneumatic tires and inner tubes for vehicles.
In addition to the above registrations, Complainant also utilizes the following domain names:
<bfgoodrich.com> registered August 15, 1996 and directing browsers to a website for the BFGoodrich.
<michelin.com> registered December 1, 1993 and directing browsers to a website for the Michelin Group.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds: ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix).
[a.] Respondent’s <bfgoodrichtire.com> and <michelintire.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BFGOODRICH and MICHELIN trademarks.
The Respondent has registered the <bfgoodrichtire.com> and <michelintire.com> domain names, the predominant parts of which are identical to Complainant’s BFGOODRICH and MICHELIN trademarks, respectively. Respondent has simply appended the word “tire” to Complainant’s registered trademarks, a word that is directly related to Complainant’s business.
The mere addition of generic or descriptive words to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with Complainant’s registered mark “llbean” does not circumvent Complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see also Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction Inc., D2001-0075 (WIPO Mar. 6, 2001) (finding that the domain name <christiesauction.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since it merely adds the word “auction” used in its generic sense); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2000) (finding that four domain names that added the descriptive words “fashion” or “cosmetics” after the trademark were confusingly similar to the trademark); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which the complainant was engaged, did not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity); see also Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s MARRIOTT mark). ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(i).
[b.] Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bfgoodrichtire.com> and <michelintire.com> domain names. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
(i.) Respondent’s <bfgoodrichtire.com> domain name does not resolve to an active commercial website. Such inactive use is referred to as “passive holding.” Respondent’s non-use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BFGOODRICH mark is not use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). Respondent’s inaction permits the inference that it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. See Am. Home Prod. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where Respondent merely passively held the domain name); see also Nike, Inc. v. Crystal Int’l, D2001-0102 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent made no use of the infringing domain names); see also Not My Kid, Inc. v. Sawchak, FA 167978 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003) (“[The] Panel finds that the passive holding of the domain name is an indication that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.”); see also Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that Respondent made preparations to use the domain name or one like it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).
In addition, Respondent’s <michelintire.com> domain name resolves to a website that has links related to tires, including links to competitor tire manufacturers. It is likely that Respondent receives compensation in the form of click-through fees from this use of the disputed domain. Thus, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name 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 Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding that a respondent was not using a disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by redirecting Internet users to a commercial search engine website with links to multiple websites that may be of interest to the complainant’s customers and presumably earning “click-through fees” in the process); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (holding that using an identical or confusingly similar domain name to receive click-through fees via sponsored links to a complainant’s business competitors does not represent 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)).
(ii.) Respondent is NOT commonly known by the <bfgoodrichtire.com> or <michelintire.com> domain names as evidenced by the WHOIS information (provided in Annex [A]); thus, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).
(iii). Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed <bfoodrichtire.com> domain name does NOT constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Chanel, Inc. v. Heyward, D2000-1802 (WIPO Feb. 23, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where “Respondent registered the domain name and did nothing with it”); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Sandhu, FA 96261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that no rights or legitimate interest can be found when Respondent fails to use disputed domain names in any way); see also Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names).
Respondent’s holding of the <michelintire.com> domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites which promote or link to third-party websites that provide Respondent with commercial gain is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Balata Inc., FA 888649 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2007) (finding that “using the confusingly similar <viaggidea.com> domain name to operate a website that features links to various commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees….is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)”); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that a respondent had no rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) where it was used to operate a website featuring links to websites featuring goods and services unrelated to the business of a complainant).
[c.] Respondent registered and used the <bfgoodrichtire.com> and <michelintire.com> domain names in bad faith. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
It can be inferred that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BFGOODRICH and MICHELIN trademarks because the marks are recognized worldwide and have been registered with the USPTO. Registration of a domain name, despite knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l, Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof”); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith).
The fact that Respondent currently passively holds the disputed <bfgoodrichtire.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).
Respondent’s <michelintire.com> domain name displays a website that has links to tires for sale, including links to competitor tire manufacturers. This diversion scheme is disrupting Complainant’s business by misleading Internet users searching for Complainant’s tire services. See David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that a respondent registered and used a disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii) where that respondent used the domain to advertise goods and services of a complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting that complainant’s business); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007).
Furthermore, while each of the circumstances listed under Policy ¶4(b), if proven, evidences bad faith use and registration of a domain name, additional factors can also be used to support findings of bad faith. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the “totality of circumstances”); see Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“the examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive”).
Respondent’s registration of the disputed <bfgoodrichtire.com> and <michelintire.com> domain names, domain names that incorporate the Complainant’s BFGOODRICH and MICHELIN marks in their entirety, was likely based on the distinctive and well-known qualities of Complainant’s marks. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Ashby, D2000-0241 (WIPO June 14, 2000) (finding that the fame of the YAHOO! mark negated any plausible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the <yahooventures.com> domain name); see also E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Oak Inv. Group, D2000-1213 (WIPO Nov. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s famous GALLO marks and (2) Respondent made no use of the domain name <winegallo.com>); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”).
In sum, Respondent’s passive holding of a domain names confusingly similar to Complainant’s BFGOODRICH and MICHELIN marks evidences bad faith registration.
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 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 has two trademark registrations for the BFGOODRICH mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,087,694 registered March 21, 1978). Complainant also has a trademark registration for the MICHELIN mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 892,045 registered June 2, 1970). Complainant uses the BFGOODRICH and MICHELIN marks to manufacture and market tires for a variety of vehicles. Complainant’s USPTO registrations sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH marks pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO).
Complainant claims the <bfgoodrichtire.com> and <michelintire.com> domain names are confusingly similar to its marks. The <bfgoodrichtire.com> and <michelintire.com> domain names fully incorporate the BFGOODRICH and MICHELIN marks, respectively, add the descriptive term “tire” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Adding a descriptive term and gTLD to a complainant’s mark do not sufficiently distinguish the resulting domain name from the mark. See e.g., Best Western Int’l, Inc. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 126834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2012) (finding that the deletion of spacing in a mark and the addition of a gTLD are irrelevant as they are dictated by the standardized nature of second- and top-level domain names, and further that the addition of generic and descriptive terms fails to negate confusing similarity). Following this general proposition, Respondent’s additions of “.com” and “tire” fail to adequately distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. The <bfgoodrichtire.com> domain name confusingly similar to the BFGOODRICH mark and the <michelintire.com> domain name confusingly similar to the MICHELIN 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 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 disputed domain names based upon the WHOIS record. The registrant of disputed domain names is “Midwest Auto Repair” according to the WHOIS information. In considering the Policy ¶4(c)(ii) analysis, the WHOIS information as well as any additional evidence in the record must be considered. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). The present record provides no basis for finding Respondent is commonly known by either disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Respondent is not making an active use of the <bfgoodrichtire.com>. The <bfgoodrichtire.com> domain name resolves to an error message saying, “This webpage is not available.” While it is possible to use a domain name without establishing a web site, this error message suggests the disputed domain name is not being used at all, which means Respondent could not have acquired any rights to the disputed domain name. Simply holding a domain name without making any use of it 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 George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶4(c)(i) or Policy ¶4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name).
Respondent’s <michelintire.com> domain name resolves to a website promoting links related to tires, including links to competing tire manufacturers. Respondent likely generates revenue from the linked pages. The landing page from <michelintire.com> features links to competing tire merchants and manufacturers such as “New Goodyear Tire,” “Dunlop Tire Sale,” and “Cheapest Car Tires.” Respondent’s use of the <michelintire.com> domain name to promote links to Complainant’s competitors does not constitute 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).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent’s use of the <michelintire.com> domain name to feature competing links evidences bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). The <michelintire.com> domain name resolves to a page featuring competing links such as “New Goodyear Tire,” “Dunlop Tire Sale,” and “Cheapest Car Tires.” Respondent’s use of the <michelintire.com> domain name to promote links to Complainant’s competitors is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (“Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parking website which provides click through revenue to Respondent and which displays links to travel-related products and services that directly compete with Complainant’s business. Accordingly, Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent’s non-use of the <bfgoodrichtire.com> is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). In Disney Enters. Inc. v. Meyers, FA 697818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 26, 2006), the panel held the non-use of a disputed domain name for several years constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). Respondent has not used the <bfgoodrichtire.com> since February 2, 1997. Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the <bfgoodrichtire.com> for more than a decade is adequate evidence of Policy ¶4(a)(iii) bad faith registration and use.
Since Respondent is in the tire businesses, it is inconceivable Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s trademarks. Respondent nevertheless registered the disputed domain names. Respondent offers no explanation. This constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
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 <bfgoodrichtire.com> and <michelintire.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, September 22, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page