j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. VIJAY S KUMAR / STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING SERVICES PVT LTD
Claim Number: FA1511001647718
Complainant is j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Robert W. Zelnick of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is VIJAY S KUMAR / STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING SERVICES PVT LTD (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <360campaigner.com>, registered with eNom, Inc.
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 Forum electronically on November 18, 2015; the Forum received payment on November 18, 2015.
On November 19, 2015, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <360campaigner.com> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 24, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 14, 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@360campaigner.com. Also on November 24, 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 December 14, 2015.
On December 23, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 3(b)(viii), set forth below is the Trademark/Service Mark Information:
[a.] Complainant j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. are affiliate companies that are ultimately owned by a common parent, j2 Global, Inc.
[b.] This Complaint is based on the well-known and federally registered CAMPAIGNER® family of word and design marks owned by j2 Global Canada, Inc. and the well-known and federally registered CAMPAIGNERCRM®, CAMPAIGNERSMTP®, CAMPAIGNERSPM®, and CAMPAIGNERELEMENTS® family of word and design marks owned by Landslide Technologies, Inc. (collectively, the “CAMPAIGNER® Marks”), as well as Complainant’s ownership of domain names comprised of or containing the CAMPAIGNER® mark.
[c.] Complainant provides world-famous electronic marketing and advertising services and related goods under the CAMPAIGNER® Marks, including without limitation solutions for delivering, managing and automating mass and customized e-mail communications. Complainant’s CAMPAIGNER®-branded goods and services are offered globally and are used by more than 8,000 customers which include, inter alia, small-to-medium sized businesses and multinational enterprises.
[d.] Complainant’s nationwide U.S. trademark rights to Complainant’s CAMPAIGNER® Marks date back to at least February 2000. Since at least as early as 1999, Complainant and its predecessors-in-interest have offered their electronic marketing solutions in U.S. commerce under the mark CAMPAIGNER®. Complainant and its affiliates currently own the domain names CAMPAIGNER.COM and CAMPAIGNERCRM.COM.
[e.] Revenues under Complainant’s CAMPAIGNER® Marks are substantial. For example, since 2008, sales of CAMPAIGNER® goods and services have generated over $90 million in total revenue.
[f.] Complainant devotes substantial money and resources to advertise and market goods and services under the CAMPAIGNER® Marks. For example, since 2011, Complainant spent over $8,000,000 advertising the CAMPAIGNER® solutions in the United States. Furthermore, Complainant advertises the CAMPAIGNER® goods and services in media channels that draw the attention of millions of people daily, including but not limited to internet and social media platforms, television shows and commercials airing on networks such as Fox, radio commercials, trade shows, and through direct mail campaigns.
[g.] Complainant owns active trademark registrations in the U.S. and around the world for the CAMPAIGNER® Marks.
[h.] The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office accepts and acknowledges that Complainant’s CAMPAIGNER® Marks are inherently distinctive trademarks, evidenced by the registration of those marks on the Principal Register without a claim of acquired distinctiveness. (See U.S. Registration Nos. 2790079 and 4033055). Moreover, Complainant’s primary CAMPAIGNER® mark has achieved incontestable status, which means that Complainant is the conclusive owner of the exclusive right to use CAMPAIGNER® in connection with the registered services. (See U.S. Registration No. 2790079).
[i.] In addition to the cited trademark registrations, Complainant owns common law rights around the world to the CAMPAIGNER® Marks, including Complainant’s above-referenced CAMPAIGNER®-formative domains. (See Annex 2).
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix), this Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds:
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established rights in the CAMPAIGNER® Marks through long, continuous, and widespread use of those marks in commerce in the United States and foreign countries, as well as through federal registration of the marks. The Disputed Domain was registered on April 19, 2013, which was approximately 13 years after Complainant’s nationwide U.S. rights in the CAMPAIGNER® mark had been established in 2000, and approximately 15 years after the campaigner.com domain was registered by Complainant’s predecessor in interest.
The Disputed Domain is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known CAMPAIGNER® Marks because it contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, while adding the generic and/or descriptive number 360.
It is well-settled that the mere addition of generic terms or numbers to a Complainant’s mark is not sufficient to create a distinctive domain name and to overcome a finding of confusing similarity, pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶4(a)(i). See, e.g., Google v. Privacy-Protect.cn, FA1301001480881 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2013) (holding that Respondent’s <googlefiles1.com> domain is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark GOOGLE and characterizing the number “1” as a non-distinctive addition); Univision Commc’ns Inc. v. Forthright Media / Michael Piotrowski, FA470373 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2013) (“The addition of generic numbers does not differentiate Respondent’s disputed domain name [univision19.com] from Complainant’s mark [UNIVISION] under Policy ¶4(a)(i).”).
It is also well-settled that the addition of even a descriptive term to a Complainant’s mark is not sufficient to overcome a finding of confusing similarity. The website located at the Disputed Domain states “360 Campaigner Has A Gamut of Solutions That Help Businesses Encompass 360 Degrees Of Marketing” (emphasis added). Thus, the number “360” serves only to identify that Respondent’s “CAMPAIGNER”-branded services allegedly provide comprehensive (“360 degrees of”) marketing solutions to clients. See e.g. Laboratoires De Biologie Vegetale Yves Rocher v. Choi, FA 104201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 22, 2002) (holding that the <yveskorea.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s YVES ROCHER mark even though the domain name was only similar in part); Univision Communications Inc. v George Magda, FA 1008001339346 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 28, 2010) (holding that Respondent’s <univisiondenver.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNIVISION mark); Univision Communications Inc. v. Cayman Ninety Business, Domain Administrator, FA1007001337367 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2010) (finding the domain univisionnoticias.com to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNIVISION.COM mark, because “adding a descriptive word to Complainant’s mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name sufficiently to prevent confusing similarity under Policy ¶4(a)(i)”); see also Univision Communications Inc. v. Fabian Ciodo, FA1007001337365 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 26, 2010)(finding the domain univisionhoroscopos.com to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNIVISION mark); Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Ron Johnson, FA 1330935 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2010) (holding that Respondent’s <orlandofloridakia.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KIA mark); see also Gannett Co. v. Chan, D2004-0117 (WIPO Apr. 8, 2004).
The addition of the generic top-level domain “.COM,” does not distinguish Respondent’s Disputed Domain from Complainant’s marks. See Travelocity.com LP v. Thomas Lefleur c/o n/a, FA0911001296087 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2010) (“Similarly, the addition of a gTLD does not reduce the likelihood of confusion between the resulting domain name and the mark, because every domain name must contain a top-level domain.”); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”).
Therefore, the Disputed Domain is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAMPAIGNER® Marks.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain:
There is no indication that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain. The record lists the registrant for the Disputed Domain as “VIJAY S KUMAR / STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING SERVICES PVT LTD.” Nothing therein suggests or implies that Respondent is commonly known by the name “360 Campaigner.” It is well established by prior panel decisions that a respondent does not have rights in a disputed domain name when the respondent is not commonly known by that name. See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003); see also Angela C. Watson v. ZJ, FA 624501 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 24, 2006); see also Herbalife Int’l of America, Inc. v. Marc Larsen, FA 766735 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2006); see also Vin Diesel v. LMN a/k/a L.M. Nordell, FA 804924 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2006); see also Science Apps. Int’l Corp. v. Int’l Names Ltd., FA 868891 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 29, 2007).
Respondent is not engaging in a bona fide offering of goods or services, or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain. On multiple occasions, Complainant has attempted to contact Respondent through the listed e-mail addresses and street addresses advertised on Respondent’s website. On September 14 and 15, 2015, Complainant emailed letters to all of Respondent’s email addresses listed on the website at the Disputed Domain (i.e. info@360campaigner.com, help@360campaigner.com, and support@360campaigner.com). All e-mails bounced back to Complainant as undeliverable. On September 14, 2015, Complainant sent a letter via Federal Express to the Omaha, Nebraska street address found in the Contact Us section on Respondent’s website. An employee of the Omaha office building manager called Complainant upon receipt of the Federal Express package to inform Complainant that there is not currently, and never has been, any tenant under the name “360Campaigner.” On September 15, 2015, Complainant sent a letter to Respondent’s street address in India, to which Respondent has not replied. Complainant called the telephone number published on Respondent’s website but the call did not connect with a live person. Complainant also could not locate any business registrations for the name “360 Campaigner.” Therefore, it is clear that Respondent has provided false contact information in connection with the Disputed Domain and is not legitimately offering bona fide goods and services through the Disputed Domain, as Respondent is unreachable.
Even though Respondent is unreachable, the website located at the Disputed Domain purports to offer for sale goods and services in the field of electronic marketing, which directly overlap with the services covered by Complainant’s registrations and offered via Complainant’s websites accessible through Complainant’s domain names. By using a domain name identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAMPAIGNER® Marks in connection with goods and services identical and/or highly similar to those Complainant offers under the CAMPAIGNER® Marks, Respondent is using the Disputed Domain to attract competing customers, for attempted commercial gain, to Respondent’s website by creating consumer confusion. This does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain on the part of Respondent. See, e.g., Wellness International Network v. Oakwood Medical Solutions, FA0106000097667 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 16, 2001).
Complainant has never authorized Respondent to register or use Complainant’s CAMPAIGNER® Marks as part of any domain name. There is no affiliation, connection, or association between Respondent and Complainant.
As stated above, Respondent’s Disputed Domain was registered approximately 13 years after Complainant’s rights in the first of the CAMPAIGNER® Marks had been established, and approximately 15 years after Complainant’s predecessor in interest first registered the domain CAMPAIGNER.COM. In addition, Complainant’s CAMPAIGNER® Marks had already become widely known in the United States and internationally long before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain.
Respondent cannot claim to have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain because Respondent is using the domain in bad faith, for the reasons set forth in the following section below. See N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc. v. Entredomains, Case No. D2000-0387)(WIPO Jul. 5, 2000) (“Bad faith registration and use of domains does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the names.”).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent is a competitor of Complainant’s CAMPAIGNER® goods and services, as both Respondent and Complainant target customers looking for e-mail marketing and advertising solutions. By using a domain name identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered CAMPAIGNER® Marks to direct Internet users to a webpage that purports to advertise competitive marketing services, it is clear that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under UDRP Policy 4(a)(iii). See EthnicGrocer.com v. Latin Grocer.com; FA0003000094384 (National Arbitration Forum July 7, 2000) (registration of slight variation of Complainant’s mark suggests Respondent registered names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business).
Respondent has included false contact information in connection with the Disputed Domain. See supra. Prior panel decisions have found that providing false contact information is additional evidence of bad faith domain name registration. See Zappos.com, Inc. v. RENATA Svensdotter, FA FA0601000624407 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 22, 2006); Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 97361 (National Arb. Forum July 16, 2001) (Bad faith is further evidenced by the fact that Respondent provided false registration and contact information for infringing domains); see also Home Director, Inc. v. HomeDirector, D2000-0111, (WIPO Apr. 11, 2000) (finding that providing false or misleading information in connection with the registration of the domain name is evidence of bad faith).
Given the notoriety of Complainant’s CAMPAIGNER® Marks coupled with the fact that Complainant’s mark has been registered and is incontestable on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Respondent had both actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s Marks at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1072, 1115. It is well established by prior panel decisions that a respondent’s registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark with actual or constructive knowledge of the complainant’s rights in the mark is evidence that the respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith. See, e.g., Target Brand, Inc. v. Dauren Niazov and Targetporn JSC, FA 381229 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 25, 2005) (finding that respondent’s registration of <targetporn.com> with actual or constructive knowledge of the TARGET mark is evidence bad faith); 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 or the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”); Ty Inc. v. Parvin, D2000-0688 (WIPO Nov. 9, 2000) (finding that respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name was in bad faith where respondent should have been aware of complainant’s BEANIE BABIES mark).
Complainant’s predecessor in interest registered the CAMPAIGNER.COM domain in 1998. Respondent registered <360campaigner.com> in 2013. Prior panel decisions have found bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business when a respondent registered a complainant’s mark in a different top-level domain name after the date of Complainant’s domain registration. See The Board of Governors of the University of Alberta v. Michael Katz dba Domain Names for Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0378 (2000).
For all of the foregoing reasons, there is no dispute that Registrant registered and used the Disputed Domain in bad faith to disrupt Complainant’s business and harm the tremendous goodwill and value of Complainant’s CAMPAIGNER® Marks.
B. Respondent
Hi All,
Strategic outsourcing services pvt ltd., is a IT outsourcing and IT consulting company which managing all IT services like domain Registration, Designing, webhosting, Development, Testing , deployment and other IT Services management work for www.360campaigner.com who is one of our client.
We have discussed with 360campaigner owners and team about this claim and they are agreed to stop the services by shutting down the domain immediately.
About transferring the domain back to claimers is not yet concluded till they get opinion from their legal advisor.
We will update once we get the details.
Regards,
IT support desk
Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd.,
On behalf of 360campaigner.com
(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 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.
Complainant uses the CAMPAIGNER mark in connection with its marketing and advertising services, as well as the automation and management of mass and customized email communications. Complainant registered the CAMPAIGNER mark with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,790,079, registered Dec. 9, 2003). Registration of a mark with a governmental authority (such as the USPTO) grants Complainant rights under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”). While Complainant appears to be located in India, Complainant need not show it has rights in India. Complainant need only who it has rights somewhere, which Complainant has done. Complainant has rights in the CAMPAIGNER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <360campaigner.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CAMPAIGNER mark because it merely appends the numerals “360” and the “.com” gTLD to the fully incorporated mark. While this Panel believes 360 may not be descriptive in all cases, it is descriptive in this case because the way it is used on Respondent’s web site (which says “360 Campaigner Has A Gamut of Solutions That Help Businesses Encompass 360 Degrees Of Marketing”). 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). Every domain name is required to have a TLD (whether or not it is a gTLD or a ccTLD). Therefore, the existence of the TLD must be ignored when evaluating the question of confusing similarly under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See also 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, this Panel finds Respondent’s <360campaigner.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CAMPAIGNER mark under 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 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 claims Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests regarding the <360campaigner.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to the WHOIS information as well as other evidence on record. Initially, the domain name was registered under a WHOIS privacy scheme. Once this proceeding started, the registration was changed to Vijay S Kumar / Strategic Outsourcing Services PVT LTD. This name is also a nominee name (being the name of an IT developer). There are no facts in the record which would support a finding Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. See Educ. Broad. Corp. v. DomainWorks Inc., FA 882172 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <thirteen.com> domain name based on all evidence in the record, and the respondent did not counter this argument in its response).
Complainant claims Respondent has not made any bona fide offerings of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s use of the domain demonstrates an attempt to offer electronic marketing goods/services which directly compete with Complainant’s business purposes. A competing use by a respondent can indicate a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2010) (“The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Respondent has failed to establish any bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent registered the domain name using a WHOIS privacy service. This means Respondent has not publicly associated itself in any way with the disputed domain name. Therefore, Respondent could not acquire any right to the domain name simply by registering it. This conclusion is reinforced by the false contact information on Respondent’s web site.
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent has registered and used the <360campaigner.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to directly compete with Complainant. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). In Jerie v. Burian, FA 795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006), the panel concluded the respondent registered and used the <sportlivescore.com> domain name to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because the respondent was maintaining a website in direct competition with the complainant. It seems evident Respondent registered and subsequently used the <360campaigner.com> domain name to compete with Complainant’s business offerings under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant claims Respondent’s false contact information indicates bad faith under a an analysis of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use. In this case, Respondent also used a privacy service to register the domain name. This raises the rebuttable presumption of bad faith registration and use in a commercial context. Respondent has done nothing to rebut that presumption. Even the beneficial owner’s name is the name of a nominee (bringing to mind a matryoshka doll also known as a Russian nesting doll). See McDonald’s Corp. v. Holy See, FA 155458 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 27, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of falsified information when it registered the disputed domain name was evidence that the domain name was registered in bad faith, despite the respondent’ claim that such an action was necessary to protect it from a reprisal by the complainant).
It seems clear Respondent registered and sued the domain with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark. This amounts to bad faith registration and use based upon the totality of the circumstances under the penumbra of Policy ¶ 4(b).
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 <360campaigner.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, January 4, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page