EMVCO, LLC c/o Visa Holdings v. joe hall / united team
Claim Number: FA1507001630199
Complainant is EMVCO, LLC c/o Visa Holdings (“Complainant”), represented by Patchen M. Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is joe hall / united team (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <emvglobal.com>, <emvretriever.com>, <emvsafe.com>, <firstdataemv.com>, <merchantservicesemv.com>, <npcemv.com>, <posemv.com>, <retrieveremv.com>, <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 22, 2015; the Forum received payment on July 23, 2015.
On July 24, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <emvglobal.com>, <emvretriever.com>, <emvsafe.com>, <firstdataemv.com>, <merchantservicesemv.com>, <npcemv.com>, <posemv.com>, <retrieveremv.com>, <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.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 July 27, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 2015 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@emvglobal.com, postmaster@emvretriever.com, postmaster@emvsafe.com, postmaster@firstdataemv.com, postmaster@merchantservicesemv.com, postmaster@npcemv.com, postmaster@posemv.com, postmaster@retrieveremv.com, postmaster@squareemv.com, postmaster@emvchipcards.com, postmaster@emvfreeterminal.com, postmaster@emvnpc.com, postmaster@emvpayanywhere.com, postmaster@emvphoneswipe.com, postmaster@emvpurepayments.com, postmaster@emvtotalmerchantservices.com, postmaster@emvvantiv.com, postmaster@payanywhereemv.com, postmaster@phoneswipeemv.com. Also on July 27, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 20, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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:
1. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) - Complainant’s EMV mark is recognized as the authority for secure payment transactions worldwide. Complainant has rights in the EMV mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,233,769, registered on April 24, 2007). Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to the EMV mark because each contains the entirety of the mark, and are differentiated by only the additions of various descriptive or generic terms, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
2. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) - Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the available WHOIS information lists “Joe Hall” as Registrant for each domain name and because Respondent is not authorized, or otherwise permitted, by Complainant to use the EMV mark. Respondent fails to use the <emvglobal.com> domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent used the resolving website to compete with Complainant. Respondent fails to use the remaining domain names to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because each resolves to a parked page containing pay-per-click links.
3. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) - Respondent uses the <emvglobal.com> domain name in bad faith because it used the resolving website to compete with Complainant by confusing Internet users in regards to Complainant’s association with the domain. Respondent uses the remaining domains in bad faith by allowing them to resolve to parked pages, which host links through which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Respondent registered each domain name in bad faith because it had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the EMV mark at the time of registration for each domain. In addition, Respondent renewed the registration of the <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com> domain names in bad faith because Respondent did so after having received and responding to cease and desist letters from Complainant.
B. Respondent:
1. Respondent has failed to submit a formal Response.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant contends that each domain name shares a common Registrant in “Joe Hall,” that each domain name has the same address, telephone number and e-mail address associated with it, and that Respondent’s communications with Complainant in Exhibit F indicate common control over all of the domain names by the same party.
The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently presented evidence demonstrating that the listed entities are jointly controlled.
1. Respondent’s <emvglobal.com>, <emvretriever.com>, <emvsafe.com>, <firstdataemv.com>, <merchantservicesemv.com>, <npcemv.com>, <posemv.com>, <retrieveremv.com>, <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s EMV mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <emvglobal.com>, <emvretriever.com>, <emvsafe.com>, <firstdataemv.com>, <merchantservicesemv.com>, <npcemv.com>, <posemv.com>, <retrieveremv.com>, <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered or used the <emvglobal.com>, <emvretriever.com>, <emvsafe.com>, <firstdataemv.com>, <merchantservicesemv.com>, <npcemv.com>, <posemv.com>, <retrieveremv.com>, <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com> 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 alleges it has rights in the EMV mark through its registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,233,769, registered on April 24, 2007). Complainant’s registration information is provided in Exhibit D. Past panels have found that registration with the USPTO suffices to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (concluding that the 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 has rights in the EMV mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <emvglobal.com>, <emvretriever.com>, <emvsafe.com>, <firstdataemv.com>, <merchantservicesemv.com>, <npcemv.com>, <posemv.com>, <retrieveremv.com>, <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com> domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s EMV mark because each entirely contains the mark and each is differentiated by only the addition of various words and the gTLD “.com.” Past panels have found that the addition of “.com” is irrelevant to 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). Complainant argues that every other addition contained within the disputed domain names is either a word or phrase descriptive of Complainant’s business operations, or else it is a generic term. These words and phrases include: “global,” “retriever,” “safe,” “first data,” “merchant services,” “npc,” “pos,” “square,” “chip cards,” “free terminal,” “pay anywhere,” “phone swipe,” “pure payments,” “total merchant services,” and, “vantiv.” Complainant asserts that “npc” refers to “National Processing Company,” and that “npc,” “square,” and “vantiv” refer to payment processing companies. Complainant also asserts that “pos” is an abbreviation for “Point of Sale.” Past panels have found that the addition of generic or descriptive terms to a mark, in the creation of a domain name, results in a domain name confusingly similar to the mark. 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)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s EMV mark pursuant to 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 alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names as Respondent is not authorized, or otherwise permitted, by Complainant to use the EMV mark. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information lists “Joe Hall” as Registrant and that Respondent has failed to provide further evidence to indicate being commonly known by the domain names. Past panels have found such a lack of evidence sufficient to show that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent fails to use the <emvglobal.com> domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent used the resolving website to compete with Complainant. Complainant has provided evidence of this competitive use in Exhibit E, showing what appears to be a website selling services related to security and transactions while displaying the EMV mark. Past panels have found competitive use sufficient to show a lack of bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and 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). The Panel finds that Respondent engaged in such a competitive use, and it finds that Respondent fails to use the <emvglobal.com> domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant also asserts that after it contacted Respondent about its use of the <emvglobal.com> domain name, Respondent ceased such use, and that the resolving webpage currently constitutes an inactive use. Complainant’s Exhibit E provides evidence of this use. Past panels have found that an inactive use can also constitute a lack of rights and legitimate interests in a domain name. See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s current use of the <emvglobal.com> domain name fails to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent fails to use the remaining domain names to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because each resolves to a parked page containing pay-per-click links. Complainant has provided evidence of this use in Exhibit G, displaying the resolving webpage for each of the <emvretriever.com>, <emvsafe.com>, <firstdataemv.com>, <merchantservicesemv.com>, <npcemv.com>, <posemv.com>, <retrieveremv.com>, <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com> domain names. Complainant asserts that these links allow an inference of being used to generate revenue. Past panels have agreed that the hosting of links to generate revenue suffices to show a lack of bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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 earn click-through fees via sponsored links to a complainant’s 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)); see also Royal Bank of Scotland Grp plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not a use in connection with 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), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites). The Panel agrees with Complainant’s argument that the hosting of links allows an inference that the links generate revenue, and it finds that Respondent fails to use the domain names to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and uses the <emvretriever.com>, <emvsafe.com>, <firstdataemv.com>, <merchantservicesemv.com>, <npcemv.com>, <posemv.com>, <retrieveremv.com>, <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com> domain names for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business operations by using them to resolve to parked webpages, hosting what are, presumably, pay-per-click links. Complainant has provided documentation of this use in Exhibit G. Past panels have found disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), thereby showing bad faith in use under similar circumstances. 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).”). The Panel finds such use here, and it finds that Respondent registered and uses the <emvretriever.com>, <emvsafe.com>, <firstdataemv.com>, <merchantservicesemv.com>, <npcemv.com>, <posemv.com>, <retrieveremv.com>, <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the <emvglobal.com> domain name in bad faith because it used the resolving website to compete with Complainant by confusing Internet users in regards to Complainant’s association with the domain. Complainant has provided evidence of this competitive use in Exhibit E, showing what appears to be a website selling services related to security and transactions while displaying the EMV mark. Past panels have found bad faith use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) in similar circumstances. See Tower Labs. Ltd. v. Seltzer, FA 791325 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2006) (concluding that the respondent registered and was using the <bromoseltzer.com> domain name in bad faith because it displayed a logo similar to the complainant’s BROMO SELTZER mark, which was likely to confuse the public as to the source of the material exhibited at the respondent’s website). The Panel finds such behavior by Respondent here, and it finds that Respondent registered and uses the <emvglobal.com> domain in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also asserts that after it contacted Respondent about its use of the <emvglobal.com> domain name, Respondent ceased such use, and that the resolving webpage currently constitutes an inactive use. Complainant’s Exhibit E provides evidence of this use. Past panels have found that an inactive use can also constitute a bad faith use. See 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). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent currently uses the <emvglobal.com> domain name in bad faith.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the EMV mark. Complainant has provided, in Exhibit F, correspondence with Respondent about several of the disputed domain names, in which Respondent displays apparent knowledge about Complainant’s business operations in conjunction with the EMV mark. Past panels have found that when respondents have actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark, the registration of a confusingly similar domain name is done in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Bluegreen Corp. v. eGo, FA 128793 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 16, 2002) (finding bad faith where the method by which the respondent acquired the disputed domain names indicated that the respondent was well aware that the domain names incorporated marks in which the complainant had rights). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the EMV mark at the time of registration, and it finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
In addition, Complainant alleges that Respondent renewed the registration for each of the <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com> domain names in bad faith because Respondent did so after having received and responding to cease and desist letters from Complainant. Complainant has provided a copy of this cease and desist letter, in Exhibit H, as well as a series of correspondence between Complainant and Respondent, in Exhibit F, which appears to verify that Respondent received and responded to this letter. Past panels have agreed that having knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark at the time of renewal for a domain name confusingly similar to that mark constitutes a bad faith registration renewal. See Houlberg Dev. v. Adnet Int’l, FA 95698 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2000) (holding that as the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s asserted rights in "Retail Engine" as a trademark before it renewed the domain name, the domain name was renewed in violation of ICANN Policy ¶ 2(b) and hence in bad faith). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent renewed the registration for the <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <emvglobal.com>, <emvretriever.com>, <emvsafe.com>, <firstdataemv.com>, <merchantservicesemv.com>, <npcemv.com>, <posemv.com>, <retrieveremv.com>, <squareemv.com>, <emvchipcards.com>, <emvfreeterminal.com>, <emvnpc.com>, <emvpayanywhere.com>, <emvphoneswipe.com>, <emvpurepayments.com>, <emvtotalmerchantservices.com>, <emvvantiv.com>, <payanywhereemv.com>, and <phoneswipeemv.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: September 2, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page