Fandango, Inc. and Daily Candy, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy
Claim Number: FA1011001360961
Complainant is Fandango, Inc. and Daily Candy, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Above.com Domain Privacy (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <daliycandy.com>, <dfandango.com>, <fabndango.com>, <famndango.com>, <fandagngo.com>, <fandaigo.com>, <fandanbo.com>, <fandanfgo.com>, <fandanfo.com>, <fandangoc.com>, <fandangousa.com>, <fandangpo.com>, <fandanjo.com>, <fandrango.com>, <fanwango.com>, <fgandango.com>, <galaxyfandango.com>, <mfandango.com>, <rfandango.com>, <spandango.com>, <wwfandango.com>, and <wwwwfandango.com>, registered with Above.com Pty. Ltd.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 30, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 30, 2010.
On December 2, 2010, Above.com Pty. Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <daliycandy.com>, <dfandango.com>, <fabndango.com>, <famndango.com>, <fandagngo.com>, <fandaigo.com>, <fandanbo.com>, <fandanfgo.com>, <fandanfo.com>, <fandangoc.com>, <fandangousa.com>, <fandangpo.com>, <fandanjo.com>, <fandrango.com>, <fanwango.com>, <fgandango.com>, <galaxyfandango.com>, <mfandango.com>, <rfandango.com>, <spandango.com>, <wwfandango.com>, and <wwwwfandango.com> domain names are registered with Above.com Pty. Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Above.com Pty. Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.com Pty. Ltd 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 December 3, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 23, 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@daliycandy.com, postmaster@dfandango.com, postmaster@fabndango.com, postmaster@famndango.com, postmaster@fandagngo.com, postmaster@fandaigo.com, postmaster@fandanbo.com, postmaster@fandanfgo.com, postmaster@fandanfo.com, postmaster@fandangoc.com, postmaster@fandangousa.com, postmaster@fandangpo.com, postmaster@fandanjo.com, postmaster@fandrango.com, postmaster@fanwango.com, postmaster@fgandango.com, postmaster@galaxyfandango.com, postmaster@mfandango.com, postmaster@rfandango.com, postmaster@spandango.com, postmaster@wwfandango.com, and postmaster@wwwwfandango.com. Also on December 3, 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 December 28, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of a response form Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <daliycandy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DAILYCANDY mark.
Respondent’s <dfandango.com>, <fabndango.com>, <famndango.com>, <fandagngo.com>, <fandaigo.com>, <fandanbo.com>, <fandanfgo.com>, <fandanfo.com>, <fandangoc.com>, <fandangousa.com>, <fandangpo.com>, <fandanjo.com>, <fandrango.com>, <fanwango.com>, <fgandango.com>, <galaxyfandango.com>, <mfandango.com>, <rfandango.com>, <spandango.com>, <wwfandango.com>, and <wwwwfandango.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FANDANGO mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <daliycandy.com>, <dfandango.com>, <fabndango.com>, <famndango.com>, <fandagngo.com>, <fandaigo.com>, <fandanbo.com>, <fandanfgo.com>, <fandanfo.com>, <fandangoc.com>, <fandangousa.com>, <fandangpo.com>, <fandanjo.com>, <fandrango.com>, <fanwango.com>, <fgandango.com>, <galaxyfandango.com>, <mfandango.com>, <rfandango.com>, <spandango.com>, <wwfandango.com>, and <wwwwfandango.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <daliycandy.com>, <dfandango.com>, <fabndango.com>, <famndango.com>, <fandagngo.com>, <fandaigo.com>, <fandanbo.com>, <fandanfgo.com>, <fandanfo.com>, <fandangoc.com>, <fandangousa.com>, <fandangpo.com>, <fandanjo.com>, <fandrango.com>, <fanwango.com>, <fgandango.com>, <galaxyfandango.com>, <mfandango.com>, <rfandango.com>, <spandango.com>, <wwfandango.com>, and <wwwwfandango.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Daily Candy, Inc., uses the DAILYCANDY mark for online entertainment services focused on urban dwellers, including gossip news, and information about events and services available in metropolitan areas. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the DAILYCANDY mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,543,900 issued March 5, 2002).
Complainant, Fandango, Inc., uses the FANDANGO mark for movie information, ticketing and reservation services. Complainant holds trademark registrations with the USPTO for the FANDANGO mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,769,579 issued September 30, 2003).
Respondent, Above.com Domain Privacy, registered the <daliycandy.com> domain name on November 13, 2009. Respondent registered the <dfandango.com>, <fabndango.com>, <famndango.com>, <fandagngo.com>, <fandaigo.com>, <fandanbo.com>, <fandanfgo.com>, <fandanfo.com>, <fandangoc.com>, <fandangousa.com>, <fandangpo.com>, <fandanjo.com>, <fandrango.com>, <fanwango.com>, <fgandango.com>, <galaxyfandango.com>, <mfandango.com>, <rfandango.com>, <spandango.com>, <wwfandango.com>, and <wwwwfandango.com> domain names no earlier than November 26, 2005. The disputed domain names all resolve to pay-per-click link directory pages with links to Complainant, to Complainant’s competitors, and to unrelated third-party websites.
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.
The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
There are two Complainants in this matter. Complainant Fandango, Inc. and Complainant Daily Candy, Inc. are both subsidiaries of Comcast Interactive Media, a division of Comcast Corporation. The Panel finds that there is a sufficient nexus or link between Complainants. Therefore, the Panel will treat Complainants as a single entity in this proceeding. Hereinafter, the Panel will collectively refer to Complainants as “Complainant.”
The Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO trademark registrations provide conclusive evidence of Complainant’s rights in the FANDANGO and DAILYCANDY marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), even though Respondent does not live or operate a business where the mark is registered. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Hoffman, FA 874152 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 31, 2007) (finding that the complainant had sufficiently established rights in the SKUNK WORKS mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction).
Respondent’s <daliycandy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DAILYCANDY mark because the only differences are the transposition of the letters “i” and “l” and the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that minor misspellings resulting from switching two letters is insufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. David, FA 104980 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (“The misspelling of a famous mark does not diminish the confusingly similar nature between the marks and the disputed domain names.”); see also Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”). The Panel also finds that the addition of a gTLD does not affect the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s <daliycandy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DAILYCANDY mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <dfandango.com>, <fabndango.com>, <famndango.com>, <fandagngo.com>, <fandaigo.com>, <fandanbo.com>, <fandanfgo.com>, <fandanfo.com>, <fandangoc.com>, <fandangousa.com>, <fandangpo.com>, <fandanjo.com>, <fandrango.com>, <fanwango.com>, <fgandango.com>, <galaxyfandango.com>, <mfandango.com>, <rfandango.com>, <spandango.com>, <wwfandango.com>, and <wwwwfandango.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FANDANGO mark. All of the disputed domain names make one or more of the following changes to Complainant’s mark: adding a letter, replacing one letter with another letter, adding a geographic abbreviation, adding the generic word “galaxy,” omitting the period between “www” and the rest of the domain name, and either omitting a “w” from “www” or adding an extra letter “w.” The Panel finds that misspelling Complainant’s mark by either adding or exchanging a letter fails to distinguish the disputed domain names. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”).
The Panel also finds that adding generic terms or geographic abbreviations does not distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s 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)); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the addition of geographic terms, such as “cancun” to the end of the CHEAPTICKETS mark in the <cheapticketscancun.com>, <cheapticketscancun.biz>, <cheapticketscancun.net>, and <cheapticketscancun.org> domain names, does not overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The Panel concludes that omissions or additions to the “www.” prefix of the disputed domain name, such as an omitted period or an additional “w” for example, do not differentiate the disputed domain names and Complainant’s mark. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also AOL Inc. v. Forsyte Corp., FA 1298138 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 25, 2010) (finding the <wwwwaol.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the AOL mark). Again, the Panel notes that appending the gTLD “.com” to the end of Complainant’s mark does not dilute the confusingly similar nature of the disputed domain names. 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). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FANDANGO mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Before the burden to demonstrate rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names transfers to Respondent, Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) requires that Complainant put forth a prima facie case against Respondent. The Panel deems that Complainant has satisfied this burden in the instant proceeding. The Respondent’s default, however, results in the Panel’s inference that Complainant’s allegations may be taken as true and that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Banco do Brasil S.A. v. Sync Tech., D2000-0727 (WIPO Sept. 1, 2000) (“By its default, Respondent has not contested the allegation . . . that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel thus assumes that there was no other reason for the Respondent having registered <bancodobrasil.com> but the presumably known existence of the Complainant’s mark BANCO DO BRASIL”); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the respondent never submitted a response or provided the panel with evidence to suggest otherwise). However, the Panel elects to consider the evidence in the record, in light of the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors to make an independent determination on Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests.
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant alleges that it has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s marks in any domain names. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names does not reflect any association between Respondent and the disputed domain names. The Panel accordingly concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not possess rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).
Complainant argues that all of Respondent’s disputed domain names direct Internet users to directory websites full of pay-per-click links that direct to Complainant’s own authentic webpages, to Complainant’s competitors, or to completely unrelated websites. The Panel finds that using Complainant’s marks in disputed domain names that host pay-per-click link directories does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with 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)).
Complainant alleges that the <daliycandy.com>, <dfandango.com>, <fabndango.com>, <famndango.com>, <fandagngo.com>, <fandaigo.com>, <fandanbo.com>, <fandanfgo.com>, <fandanfo.com>, <fandangoc.com>, <fandangpo.com>, <fandanjo.com>, <fandrango.com>, <fanwango.com>, <fgandango.com>, <mfandango.com>, <rfandango.com>, <wwfandango.com>, and <wwwwfandango.com> domain names are all minor variations of Complainant’s mark resulting from misspellings or typographical errors. As such, Complainant argues that Respondent’s registration of these disputed domain names is typosquatting, which is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Amazon.com, Inc. v. J J Domains, FA 514939 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2 2005) (“respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <www-amazon.com> domain name because respondent's addition of the prefix "www-" to complainant's AMAZON.COM mark constitutes typosquatting.”); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site.”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to directory websites featuring pay-per-click links. Some of these links redirect Internet users to websites related to competitors of Complainant, such as sites informing consumers about local movie times or providing entertainment related news. The Panel finds that displaying links that redirect to Complainant’s competitors disrupts Complainant’s business. As a result, the Panel finds that such activities indicate bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent’s disputed domain names are all intentionally registered as confusingly similar variations on Complainant’s marks in order to attract Internet users attempting to go to Complainant’s actual sites. Respondent uses Complainant’s FANDANGO and DAILYCANDY marks in the disputed domain names in order to create a likelihood of confusion as to the source and affiliation of Respondent’s resolving websites. The pay-per-click links featured on the resolving websites generate profit for Respondent through click-through fees. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).
Respondent is engaged in the practice of typosquatting through its practice of registering confusingly similar disputed domain names, such as the <daliycandy.com>, <dfandango.com>, <fabndango.com>, <famndango.com>, <fandagngo.com>, <fandaigo.com>, <fandanbo.com>, <fandanfgo.com>, <fandanfo.com>, <fandangoc.com>, <fandangpo.com>, <fandanjo.com>, <fandrango.com>, <fanwango.com>, <fgandango.com>, <mfandango.com>, <rfandango.com>, <wwfandango.com>, and <wwwwfandango.com> domain names. The Panel finds that such typosquatting is evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2005) (“Respondent's registration of the domain names in dispute constitutes bad faith because the domain names are merely typosquatted versions of the [complainant’s] IMDB mark.); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Tak Ume domains for sale, FA 154528 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name demonstrates a practice commonly referred to as ‘typosquatting.’ This practice diverts Internet users who misspell Complainant’s mark to a website apparently owned by Respondent for Respondent’s commercial gain. ‘Typosquatting’ has been recognized as evidencing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <daliycandy.com>, <dfandango.com>, <fabndango.com>, <famndango.com>, <fandagngo.com>, <fandaigo.com>, <fandanbo.com>, <fandanfgo.com>, <fandanfo.com>, <fandangoc.com>, <fandangousa.com>, <fandangpo.com>, <fandanjo.com>, <fandrango.com>, <fanwango.com>, <fgandango.com>, <galaxyfandango.com>, <mfandango.com>, <rfandango.com>, <spandango.com>, <wwfandango.com>, and <wwwwfandango.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: January 4, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page