Microsoft Corporation v. DNS MANAGER c/o ABSOLUTEE CORP. LTD.
Claim Number: FA1001001304377
Complainant is Microsoft
Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Kristina Rosette, of Covington & Burling LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <microsoftcert.com>, <microsoftcert.net>, <microsoftcertificationexam.com>, <microsoftcertificationexams.net>, <microsoftcertificationonline.com>, <microsoftcertificationsecrets.com>, <microsoftcertificationsite.com>, <microsoftcertificationtest.com>, <microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net>, <microsoftexamsecrets.com>, <microsoftmcse.net>, <microsoftmcts.net>, <microsoftofficecertification.net>, <microsoftexams.net>, <microsoftcertification.biz>, and <microsoftcertifications.net>, registered with Onlinenic, Inc. d/b/a China-Chann.
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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 22, 2010. With its Complaint, Complainant also chose to proceed entirely electronically under the new Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”) and the new Forum’s Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”) by submitted an “opt-in” form available on the Forum’s website.
On February 2, 2010, Onlinenic, Inc. d/b/a China-Chann confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <microsoftcert.com>, <microsoftcert.net>, <microsoftcertificationexam.com>, <microsoftcertificationexams.net>, <microsoftcertificationonline.com>, <microsoftcertificationsecrets.com>, <microsoftcertificationsite.com>, <microsoftcertificationtest.com>, <microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net>, <microsoftexamsecrets.com>, <microsoftmcse.net>, <microsoftmcts.net>, <microsoftofficecertification.net>, <microsoftexams.net>, <microsoftcertification.biz>, and <microsoftcertifications.net> domain names are registered with Onlinenic, Inc. d/b/a China-Chann and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Onlinenic, Inc. d/b/a China-Chann has verified that Respondent is bound by the Onlinenic, Inc. d/b/a China-Chann registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On February 17, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 2010 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@microsoftcert.com, postmaster@microsoftcert.net, postmaster@microsoftcertificationexam.com, postmaster@microsoftcertificationexams.net, postmaster@microsoftcertificationonline.com, postmaster@microsoftcertificationsecrets.com, postmaster@microsoftcertificationsite.com, postmaster@microsoftcertificationtest.com, postmaster@microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net, postmaster@microsoftexamsecrets.com, postmaster@microsoftmcse.net, postmaster@microsoftmcts.net, postmaster@microsoftofficecertification.net, postmaster@microsoftexams.net, postmaster@microsoftcertification.biz, and postmaster@microsoftcertifications.net. Also on February 17, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 March 12, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 (effective March 1, 2010, but opted-in to by Complainant for this case) "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <microsoftcert.com>, <microsoftcert.net>, <microsoftcertificationexam.com>, <microsoftcertificationexams.net>, <microsoftcertificationonline.com>, <microsoftcertificationsecrets.com>, <microsoftcertificationsite.com>, <microsoftcertificationtest.com>, <microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net>, <microsoftexamsecrets.com>, <microsoftmcse.net>, <microsoftmcts.net>, <microsoftofficecertification.net>, <microsoftexams.net>, <microsoftcertification.biz>, and <microsoftcertifications.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <microsoftcert.com>, <microsoftcert.net>, <microsoftcertificationexam.com>, <microsoftcertificationexams.net>, <microsoftcertificationonline.com>, <microsoftcertificationsecrets.com>, <microsoftcertificationsite.com>, <microsoftcertificationtest.com>, <microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net>, <microsoftexamsecrets.com>, <microsoftmcse.net>, <microsoftmcts.net>, <microsoftofficecertification.net>, <microsoftexams.net>, <microsoftcertification.biz>, and <microsoftcertifications.net> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <microsoftcert.com>, <microsoftcert.net>, <microsoftcertificationexam.com>, <microsoftcertificationexams.net>, <microsoftcertificationonline.com>, <microsoftcertificationsecrets.com>, <microsoftcertificationsite.com>, <microsoftcertificationtest.com>, <microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net>, <microsoftexamsecrets.com>, <microsoftmcse.net>, <microsoftmcts.net>, <microsoftofficecertification.net>, <microsoftexams.net>, <microsoftcertification.biz>, and <microsoftcertifications.net> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Microsoft Corporation, is an international leader in development, manufacturing, and producing of computer technology and components. Complainant owns numerous trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its MICROSOFT (e.g., Reg. No. 1,200,236 issued on July 6, 1982), and MICROSOFT OFFICE (e.g., Reg. No. 3,625,391 issued on May 26, 2009) marks as well as with the Chinese Patent and Trademark Office (“CPTO”) for its MICROSOFT mark (e.g., Reg. No. 777,414 issued February 7, 1995). Complainant also holds trademark registrations for its MICROSOFT and MICROSOFT OFFICE marks in numerous countries around the world
Respondent registered the disputed domain names between March 2, 2005 and October 16, 2008. Respondent’s <microsoftcert.com>, <microsoftcert.net>, <microsoftcertificationexam.com>, <microsoftcertificationexams.net>, <microsoftcertificationonline.com>, <microsoftcertificationsecrets.com>, <microsoftcertificationsite.com>, <microsoftcertificationtest.com>, <microsoftexamsecrets.com>, <microsoftmcse.net>, <microsoftmcts.net>, <microsoftofficecertification.net>, <microsoftexams.net>, <microsoftcertification.biz>, and <microsoftcertifications.net> domain names resolve to websites that display materials for purchase by Internet users of exams and certifications for Complainant’s certification exams. The <microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net> domain name does not resolve to an active website.
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."
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.”).
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.
Complainant owns numerous trademark rights with the USPTO for its MICROSOFT (e.g., Reg. No. 1,200,236 issued on July 6, 1982) and MICROSOFT OFFICE (e.g., Reg. No. 3,625,391 issued on May 26, 2009) marks, as well as with the CPTO for its MICROSOFT mark (e.g., Reg. No. 777,414 issued February 7, 1995). Previous panels have found that registrations with federal trademark authorities are sufficient evidence of legal rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, and so this Panel finds. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant argues that the <microsoftcert.com>, <microsoftcert.net>, <microsoftcertificationexam.com>, <microsoftcertificationexams.net>, <microsoftcertificationonline.com>, <microsoftcertificationsecrets.com>, <microsoftcertificationsite.com>, <microsoftcertificationtest.com>, <microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net>, <microsoftexamsecrets.com>, <microsoftmcse.net>, <microsoftmcts.net>, <microsoftofficecertification.net>, <microsoftexams.net>, <microsoftcertification.biz>, and <microsoftcertifications.net> domain names all contain its entire MICROSOFT mark, adding one or more of the following descriptive terms or abbreviations “cert,” “certification”, “exam(s)”, “online”, “secrets”, or “test”, that relate to Complainant’s certification tests. Complainant contends that the above additions to its mark, as well as the addition of the generic top level domains (“gTLD”) “.com,” “.net,” or “.biz” are not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from its MICROSOFT mark. The Panel agrees that creating a domain name that incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety that adds descriptive terms that describe Complainant’s certification programs and exam does not distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Miller Brewing Co. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 243606 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2004) (finding that the <millerbeers.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s MILLER mark, because “[t]he addition of a descriptive term that describes Complainant’s business to Complainant’s registered mark, does not remove the domain from the realm of confusing similarity with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel further finds that adding a gTLD to the confusingly similar domain names is not relevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant declares that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show why it holds rights or interests in the disputed domain names. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”). The Panel finds that the Complainant has produced a prima facie case. Due to the Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel, however, will examine the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use its marks. The WHOIS information does not indicate, and there is no further evidence on record that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Complainant alleges that the <microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net> domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name that does not resolve to an active website is sufficient to show that the disputed domain name is not connected with a bona fide offering or goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also 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).
Complainant further argues that the remaining disputed
domain names resolve to websites that offer exam preparation materials for
Complainant’s exams in competition with Complainant. Complainant further submits that these
websites display Complainant’s marks prominently and display exact exam numbers
making it confusing to Internet users as to the affiliation of the
website. Complainant contends that
Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain names to attract Internet
users to its website to financially gain is evidence that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <microsoftcert.com>, <microsoftcert.net>, <microsoftcertificationexam.com>,
<microsoftcertificationexams.net>, <microsoftcertificationonline.com>, <microsoftcertificationsecrets.com>,
<microsoftcertificationsite.com>, <microsoftcertificationtest.com>,
<microsoftexamsecrets.com>, <microsoftmcse.net>, <microsoftmcts.net>,
<microsoftofficecertification.net>, <microsoftexams.net>,
<microsoftcertification.biz>, and <microsoftcertifications.net>
domain names to intentionally attract Internet users to its websites
where it offers exam preparations for Complainant’s exams, in direct
competition with Complainant, while displaying Complainant’s marks is not a bona fide offering of goods and services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Coryn
Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959
(Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding
that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide
offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website
that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under
its marks); see also Computerized
Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003)
(“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products
that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering
of goods and services.”); see also Crow v. LOVEARTH.net,
FA 203208 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 28, 2003) (“It is neither a bona fide offerings
[sic] of goods or services, nor an example of a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii) when the holder of a domain name,
confusingly similar to a registered mark, attempts to profit by passing itself
off as Complainant . . . .”). Therefore,
the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain names for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant argues that Respondents registration of many confusingly
similar disputed domain names is preventing Complainant from registering its
marks and services on the internet.
Complainant contends that Respondents shear number of infringing domain
name registrations is evidence itself of registration and use in bad
faith. The Panel finds that Respondent’s
registration of sixteen domain names that infringe upon the trademark rights of
Complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(ii). See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness,
FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of
registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by
the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Harcourt, Inc. v.
Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (“Registration of more
than one domain name that infringes on another’s registered mark(s) supports
the inference that Respondent knew of Complainant’s marks upon registering the
domain names . . . [and t]he registration of multiple
domain names that infringe on Complainant’s trademarks is evidence of a pattern
of conduct.”).
Complainant also alleges that Respondent’s use of the <microsoftcert.com>, <microsoftcert.net>, <microsoftcertificationexam.com>,
<microsoftcertificationexams.net>, <microsoftcertificationonline.com>, <microsoftcertificationsecrets.com>,
<microsoftcertificationsite.com>, <microsoftcertificationtest.com>,
<microsoftexamsecrets.com>, <microsoftmcse.net>, <microsoftmcts.net>,
<microsoftofficecertification.net>, <microsoftexams.net>,
<microsoftcertification.biz>, and <microsoftcertifications.net>
domain names to sell certification exam related products for
Complainant’s exams, while displaying Complainant’s registered marks, creates a
disruption of Complainant’s business.
The Panel finds that by using confusingly similar domain names to divert
Internet users to its website where it sells competing programs for
Complainant’s exams that Respondent has engaged in registration and use of the
disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v.
Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert
Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of
bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”);
see also Lambros
v. Brown, FA 198963 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov.
19, 2003) (finding that the respondent registered a domain name primarily to
disrupt its competitor when it sold similar goods as those offered by the
complainant and “even included Complainant's personal name on the website,
leaving Internet users with the assumption that it was Complainant's business
they were doing business with”).
Complainant also submits evidence to show that Respondent has registered and used the <microsoftcert.com>, <microsoftcert.net>, <microsoftcertificationexam.com>, <microsoftcertificationexams.net>, <microsoftcertificationonline.com>, <microsoftcertificationsecrets.com>, <microsoftcertificationsite.com>, <microsoftcertificationtest.com>, <microsoftexamsecrets.com>, <microsoftmcse.net>, <microsoftmcts.net>, <microsoftofficecertification.net>, <microsoftexams.net>, <microsoftcertification.biz>, and <microsoftcertifications.net> domain names in bad faith by diverting Internet users to its confusingly similar domain names for commercial gain. The Panel finds that by using confusingly similar domain names to attract Internet users to its website in order to sell competing products of Complainant that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc. v. Ringside Collectibles, D2000-1306 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <wwfauction.com> domain name in bad faith because the name resolved to a commercial website that the complainant’s customers were likely to confuse with the source of the complainant’s products, especially because of the respondent’s prominent use of the complainant’s logo on the site).
Complainant also contends that Respondent’s passive holding of the <microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net> domain name is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel finds that Respondent’s passive holding of the <microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <microsoftcert.com>, <microsoftcert.net>, <microsoftcertificationexam.com>, <microsoftcertificationexams.net>, <microsoftcertificationonline.com>, <microsoftcertificationsecrets.com>, <microsoftcertificationsite.com>, <microsoftcertificationtest.com>, <microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net>, <microsoftexamsecrets.com>, <microsoftmcse.net>, <microsoftmcts.net>, <microsoftofficecertification.net>, <microsoftexams.net>, <microsoftcertification.biz>, and <microsoftcertifications.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: March 26, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum