DECISION

The John C. Bogle Center for Financial Literacy v. Michael George

Claim Number: FA1510001641523

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The John C. Bogle Center for Financial Literacy (“Complainant”), represented by Serge Krimnus of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA.  Respondent is Michael George (“Respondent”), represented by Matthew H. Swyers of The Trademark Company, PLLC, Virginia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain names at issue are <bogleheads.com> and <bogleheads.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Fernando Triana, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 8, 2015; the Forum received payment on October 8, 2015.

 

On October 8, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the disputed domain names <bogleheads.com> and <bogleheads.net> 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 October 12, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 23, 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@bogleheads.com, postmaster@bogleheads.net.  Also on October 12, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 23, 2015.

 

A timely Additional Submission was received from Complainant and determined to be complete on November 25, 2015.

 

A timely Additional Submission was received from Respondent and determined to be complete on November 30, 2015.

 

On October 8, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Fernando Triana, Esq. 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.   Complainant

a.    In 1998, Melvin J. Lindauer and Taylor Larimore adopted and began using the mark BOGLEHEADS in connection with their online forum entitled “Vanguard Diehards – Bogleheads Unite to talk about your favorite fund company”. The term “Bogleheads” was chosen in honor of Mr. John Clifton “Jack” Bogle, founder and long-time CEO of The Vanguard Group, the largest provider of mutual funds in the world.

b.    Thereof, Complainant is the owner of the mark BOGLEHEADS to identify the following services: “providing information and research in the field of finance and financial investments.”

c.    Complainant uses the mark BOGLEHEADS in connection with networking events and seminars regarding investing and finance. 

d.    Complainant owns in the United States of America a federal trademark registration before the USPTO for the mark BOGLEHEADS in connection with financial and related services. Registration No. 4,036,654 (Exhibit N to the Complaint).

e.    The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), because Respondent has included the mark BOGLEHEADS in its entirety in both disputed domain names and attached a different generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to each disputed domain name.

f.     Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 

g.    Respondent is using the Domain Names to unfairly compete with Complainant. The disputed domain names <bogleheads.com> and <bogleheads.net> resolve to Respondent’s financial advising website, FPL Capital Management, the “FPL Capital Vanguard Page” which provides financial and related services that compete with the services offered by Complainant (Exhibit R to the Complaint).

h.    Respondent is offering Vanguard funds, which is no coincidence since Mr. Bogle is the founder and long-time CEO of Vanguard and the Bogleheads and Complainant’s Forum regularly discusses Vanguard funds.

i.      Respondent’s use of confusingly similar domain names to resolve to a website that provides services that are identical to the services provided by Complainant in connection with Complainant’s mark BOGLEHEADS was designed to mislead consumers into falsely believing that Respondent’s purported services are somehow affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant and to direct Internet users to Respondent’s website and services.

j.      Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. 

k.    Respondent has never been licensed or authorized to use the mark BOGLEHEADS. 

l.      Respondent has also failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.  Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to redirect Internet uses to its own competing website.

m.   Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 

n.    Respondent uses the disputed domain names to intentionally attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain. Further, Respondent had actual and or constructive notice when registering the disputed domain names.

o.    Complainant has a long and well established reputation in through the exclusive and wide spread use of its mark in the financial sector throughout the world.

p.    Respondent intended to capitalize on the created confusion to attract Internet users to its webpage. This alone constitutes evidence of bad faith in registration of a domain name.

 

B.   Respondent

a.    Respondent bought the disputed domain name <bogleheads.com> in 2010.

b.    Respondent used the disputed domain names to provide information about Vanguard and help investors invest in Vanguard mutual funds in order to help investors.

c.    Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 

d.    For at least five years, Respondent has used and operated the disputed domain names in connection with providing information and aiding investors to invest.  Such use was in no way intended to mislead consumers or to tarnish Complainant’s trademark at issue.

e.    Respondent has not registered or used the disputed domain names in bad faith.  Respondent had no notice or knowledge of Complainant or its trademark when it registered the disputed domain names. 

f.     There is no evidence that Respondent has used the disputed domain names to disrupt Complainant’s business or to commercially gain from their use.

g.    Complainant filed its trademark registration until February 25, 2011.

 

C.   Additional Submissions

a.    Complainant’s Additional Submission

                                                  i.    Complainant has established a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

                                                ii.    Complainant has a federal registration, as well as common-law rights in its mark BOGLEHEADS, based on its extensive and continuous use of the mark since 1998, along with its increasingly expanding customer base, widely read investing advice forum, highly successful investing books, and media and press attention.

                                               iii.    Respondent unfairly competes with Complainant using the disputed domain names, for which Respondent is not commonly known, as BOOGLEHEADS is not part of Respondent’s name, its company name or a derivative thereof.

                                               iv.    Respondent has adopted and used the disputed domain names to trade on the goodwill and reputation of Complainant.

                                                v.    Respondent has admitted that Complainant has rights in the mark BOGLEHEADS and that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

                                               vi.    Respondent has admitted that it is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.  Otherwise, Respondent mostly reiterates contentions made in the original Complaint.

                                              vii.    Respondent attempted to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant.  Respondent did not offer a direct sum for the domain names, but did make a general offer to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant.

 

b.    Respondent’s Additional Submission

                                                  i.    Complainant has not built a prima facie case, establishing that Respondent has no legitimate rights or interest and registered the disputed domain names in bad faith.

                                                ii.    Respondent has used the disputed domain name <bogleheads.net> for at least five years and the disputed domain name <bogleheads.com> for at least three years.

                                               iii.    Complainant offers a conversational forum which does not offer any goods or services beyond the exchange of information while Respondent offers investment services.

 

FINDINGS

1.    Complainant owns the mark BOGLEHEADS in the United States of America through common law rights since at least 2006, that is, before the disputed domain names were registered by Respondent.

 

2.    Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s mark BOGLEHEADS since both are part of the same market, yet Respondent incorporated said mark in the disputed domain names. Thus, Respondent used the mark BOGLEHEADS to create a likelihood of confusion aimed to divert consumers to Respondent’s offered services.

 

3.    Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain names or the mark BOGLEHEADS.

 

4.    Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way: Complainant has never authorized, contracted, licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark BOGLEHEADS, nor is Respondent an authorized supplier of Complainant’s services.

 

5.    Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

6.    Complainant and Respondent offer competitive services since they both refer to the financial related services of international class 36.

 

7.    Respondent has the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark due to the services offered in its website.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

This discussion, based on the evidentiary support submitted by the parties, will be developed as follows:

 

First of all, the Panel will determine whether or not the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights. Secondly, the Panel will verify if Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and thirdly, the Panel will establish whether or not the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith by Respondent.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant contends to be the owner of the mark BOGLEHEADS in the United States of America, which has been continuously used since 2000 to provide information and research in the field of finance and financial investments.

 

a)     Existence of a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights

 

Firstly, it is important to point out that Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the existence of a trademark or a service mark. The industrial property rights are only acquired by registration before the competent office in a number of many jurisdictions of the world.

 

The worldwide-accepted definition of a trademark, involves the concept of distinctive force as the most relevant element. Said force gives the sign the capability to identify the products or services of its owner and differentiate them from the product and services of other participants in the market.

 

When a sign is registered as a mark, it is surrounded by a presumption of sufficient distinctive force, and the owner is granted with an exclusive right over the mark, which entitles him to prevent any third party from using the registered sign or any other sign confusingly similar to it.

 

However, the UDRP does not discriminate between registered and unregistered trademarks[1] and thus, it is well established that a Complainant does not require owning a registered trademark to invoke the Policy. It is sufficient in certain common law jurisdictions, such as the United States of America, that Complainant has rights over an unregistered trademark as to deserve legal protection, based solely on its use in commerce.

 

In this case, Complainant proved its rights in the mark BOGLEHEADS by means of common law rights and registration.

 

The common law rights are duly demonstrated by means of the following evidence among other filed with the Complaint:

 

·         Exhibit B to the Complaint shows several articles dating back to July 24, 2000, in which the term BOGLEHEADS is coined, explained and continuously use to identify the followers of Mr. John Bogle and specially to provide financial advice and education. The amount of publications done with the term BOGLEHEADS caught the attention of prestigious news services such as CBS which in October 1, 2009 issued a publication by Allan Roth called “I Am a Boglehead – and will be posting live from Bogleheads VIII”, in which he follows the BOGLEHEADS event of 2009 and summarized it day by day. Exhibit B to the Complaint shows that this kind of recognition has been continuous and growing through the years.

 

·         Exhibit C to the Complaint shows that by December 5, 2000, the Bogleheads Forum had 8636 conversations, which is a considerable amount.

 

·         Exhibit E to the Complaint shows that by October 31, 2001, the Bogleheads Forum had 14894 conversations.

 

·         Exhibit F to the Complaint shows that by January 8, 2002, the Bogleheads Forum had 16400 conversations; by February 2, 2003 the Bogleheads Forum had 25697 conversations; by February 3, 2004 the Bogleheads Forum had 32875 conversations; by April 5, 2005 the Bogleheads Forum had 41018 conversations; by February 6, 2006 the Bogleheads Forum had 47533 conversations; and by March 7, 2008 the Bogleheads Forum had 61514 conversations.

 

·         Exhibit G to the Complaint shows the screenshot of the Bogleheads Forum’s website on June 10, 2008, which displays the topics of the forums in which the forum: “Deconstructing vanguard index funds into companies – taxes”, is in second place.

 

·         Exhibit H to the Complaint shows the continuous growth on the number of posts within each day in the Bogleheads Forum.

 

·         Exhibit I to the Complaint shows the number of visitors per year since 2007 and the increasing amount of visits throughout the years until 2011.

 

·         Exhibit J to the Complaint shows several articles written about BOGLEHEADS in publications such as Bloomberg, The Financial Times, The Baltimore Sun, The New Orleans Times Picayune, Money Magazine, and The Boston Globe, since November 2000.

 

·         Exhibit K to the Complaint shows from January 3, 2006 the Amazon.com website, offering the book “The Bogleheads’ Guide to Investing”.

 

The aforementioned evidence is sufficient to demonstrate common law rights regarding the mark BOGLEHEADS since 2000. As it is clear and uncontested that the mark BOGLEHEADS is indeed distinctive and that it has been greatly recognized by consumers and financial experts.

 

Moreover, Exhibits N to the Complaint includes the BOGLEHEADS’ trademark registration, as follows:

 

·         United States Trademark Registration No. 4,036,654 issued on October 11, 2011, for “providing information and research in the field of finance and financial investments”, first use dated from January 1, 2006.

 

This information appears to be incontestable and conclusive evidence of Complainant’s ownership of the cited mark and the exclusive right to use them in connection with the stated services. The registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive[2].

 

Thus, Complainant established its rights in the mark BOGLEHEADS since at least 2006[3].

 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has demonstrated rights in the mark BOGLEHEADS for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

b)     Identity or confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names incorporate the mark BOGLEHEADS in its entirety, with a generic top-level domain name which does not grant any distinctiveness.

 

In the first place, before establishing whether or not the disputed domain names <bogleheads.com> and <bogleheads.net> are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark BOGLEHEADS, the Panel wants to point out that the addition of generic top-level domain (gTLD), i.e., “.com,” “.biz,” “.edu,” “.org”, cannot be considered when determining if the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark[4]. Neither the addition of country-code top-level domains (“ccTLD”), i.e., “.co,” “.de,” “.cr,” “.es,” nor the insertion of a gTLD has a distinctive function[5].

 

UDRP Panels have unanimously accepted that the inclusion of the “.com” (gTLD), in the disputed domain name is not a factor in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights. In the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks, D2000-0477 (WIPO July 20, 2000), the Panel stated that:

 

“[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, ‘.com’ is one of only several such gTLDs, and ‘.com’ does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services.”

 

Furthermore, the Panel considers that the reproduction of the mark BOGLEHEADS, by the disputed domain names <bogleheads.com> and <bogleheads.net>, respectively, is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark[6]. Especially since the disputed domain names reproduce entirely Complainant’s mark without any other distinctive elements. Consequently, consumers will assume that the owner of the disputed domain names is the owner of the mark registration.

 

In consequence, as per this reasoning, the Panel finds that, in the present case, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and thus, the requirement set forth in Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is duly complied with.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

a)  Prima Facie Case.

 

Regarding this second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP Panels have unanimously consented that requiring the Complainant to prove the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name is often an impossible task: it is not only a negative but also demands access to information that is mostly within the knowledge of the Respondent[7].

 

In Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios Ltd., D2001-0121 (WIPO Mar. 30, 2001), the Panel stated that:

 

“Is the Respondent required to adduce any such evidence, if the onus is on the Complainant to prove the three elements of paragraph 4 of the Policy? While the overall burden of proof is on the Complainant, this element involves the Complainant proving matters, which are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Respondent. It involves the Complainant in the often impossible task of proving a negative. In the Panel’s view the correct approach is as follows: the Complainant makes the allegation and puts forward what he can in support (e.g. he has rights to the name, the Respondent has no rights to the name of which he is aware, he has not given any permission to the Respondent). Unless the allegation is manifestly misconceived, the Respondent has a case to answer and that is where paragraph 4(c) of the Policy comes in. If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head”.

 

Therefore, a Complainant is required to make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once this prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to Respondent, who must come forward with concrete evidence of its rights or legitimate interests[8].  If Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have met the second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names <bogleheads.com> and <bogleheads.net> because of the following: i) Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use the mark BOGLEHEADS in any manner; ii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names to trade off Complainant’s good will; iii) Respondent is using the Domain Names to unfairly compete with Complainant; iv) Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, because the disputed domain names offer competing services; and v) Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel accepts these assertions as a prima facie case made by Complainant that shifts the burden of production to Respondent.

 

b)  Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name.

 

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy includes an enunciative listing of circumstances that prove Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:

 

(i) before any notice of the dispute, Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Respondent states that, Respondent has used the disputed domain name «bogleheads.net» for at least five years and the disputed domain name «bogleheads.com» for at least three years, offering investment services, which for respondent is enough to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Nonetheless, the Policy is clear as to establish that the use has to be in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Hence, the mere use of a domain name does not indicate rights or legitimate interests. The burden is higher, said use has to be done in good faith.

 

This Panel believes that Respondent failed to prove his rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names <bogleheads.com> and <bogleheads.net>. As Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because offering competing services with Complainant’s mark is directed to capitalize Complainant’s mark BOGLEHEADS goodwill by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing services[9]. 

 

Furthermore, Respondent never explained the reason for choosing the expression BOGLEHEADS to be part of its domain names, when it is obvious from the Response and Respondent’s Additional Submission, that Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain names as an individual, business or organization.

 

Consequently, Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s mark BOGLEHEADS since both are part of the same market. Yet Respondent incorporated said mark in the disputed domain names. Thus, Respondent used the mark BOGLEHEADS to create a likelihood of confusion aimed to divert consumers to Respondent’s offered services.

 

 

Finally, Respondent is making a commercial use of the disputed domain names since they redirect to Respondent’s website in which Respondent sells financial products and investments opportunities.

 

Therefore, the second requirement of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy is met.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

 

(1)   Circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(2)   Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(3)   Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(4)   By using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his/her website or location or of a product or service on his/her website or location.

 

On December 8, 2014, Complainant sent Respondent a cease and desist letter (Exhibit U to the Complaint), requesting Respondent to transfer the disputed domain names. According to both Complainant and Respondent, Respondent did not reply to the letter.

 

Since Complainant’s trademarks are used in the disputed domain names “it is reasonable to conclude that many Internet users would suppose that the website, to which the disputed domain name resolves, has a connection with the Complainant”[10]. This conclusion might disrupt Complainant’s business, especially since Complainant and Respondent provide financial related services. In fact, the services described in Respondent’s Additional Submission take advantage of the services provided by Complainant. Respondent is offering the same financial products that Complainant explains to consumers through its forum.

 

Respondent’s use, falsely suggest sponsorship and/or endorsement by Complainant of Respondent’s website and use of the disputed domain names.

 

As per the Complaint, the disputed domain names redirect to a different domain in which Respondent’s website is displayed. Thus, Respondent has the capacity of offering his services without using a third party’s marks in the domain name; consequently, Respondent’s use is intended to disrupt Complainant’s business.

 

Hence, refusing to answer the cease and desist letter and refusing to transfer the disputed domain names to the legitimate owner of the mark BOGLEHEADS, even though Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights over the mark BOGLEHEADS and using the disputed domain names to promote and sell competing services, is evidence that Respondent has registered the domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor and it is indicative of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Furthermore, Respondent is profiting from its use of the mark BOGLEHEADS in the disputed domain names by attracting Internet users to the resolving website where Respondent sells competing services in bad faith. Respondent has created confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation or sponsorship of the disputed domain names and website in order to sell its competing services. This is indicative of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)[11]. 

 

Respondent has the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark due to the services offered in its website.

 

Consequently, the disputed domain names incorporating Complainant’s mark, possibly disrupt Complainant’s business and create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement, thus, evidencing a bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Moreover, Exhibit O to the Complaint shows that the disputed domain name <bogleheads.com> was acquired in 2012. In its Response, Respondent stated that the disputed domain names were bought in 2010. Nonetheless, Exhibit D to Respondent’s Additional Submission shows and email dated January 12, 2012 with the subject: “Your transaction is complete”, in which Godaddy informs Respondent that completion of the purchase of the disputed domain name <bogleheads.com>. Hence, the Declaration of Respondent (Exhibit 1 to the Response) is false as it states: “In 2010 I purchased the Domain Names www.bogleheads.com and www.bogleheads.net from GoDaddy”, which is a clear attempt to mislead the Panel into believing a false statement.

 

Therefore, the three elements of the Policy 4(a)(iii) are satisfied in the present case in respect to Respondent of the disputed domain names.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the disputed domain names <bogleheads.com> and <bogleheads.net> be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Fernando Triana, Esq., Panelist

Dated:  December 11, 2015