Meadowbrook, L.L.C. d/b/a The Land of Nod v. Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited
Claim Number: FA1112001419361
Complainant is Meadowbrook, L.L.C. d/b/a The Land of Nod (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wwwlandofnod.com>, registered with Tirupati Domains and Hosting Pvt 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.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 9, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 9, 2011.
On December 15, 2011, Tirupati Domains and Hosting Pvt Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wwwlandofnod.com> domain name is registered with Tirupati Domains and Hosting Pvt Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tirupati Domains and Hosting Pvt Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tirupati Domains and Hosting Pvt 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 21, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 10, 2012 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@wwwlandofnod.com. Also on December 21, 2011, 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 January 18, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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 any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
THE LAND OF NOD for mail order services in the field of books, clocks, clothes racks, coat racks, furniture and furniture hardware excluding mattresses and bedding-related products, lamps, mirrors, mobiles, pennants, picture albums, picture frames, posters, rugs, storage containers, stuffed animals, toys, wall hangings, waste baskets, window treatments and hardware therefore (U.S. Reg. No. 2,224,541);
THE LAND OF NOD for mail order services in the field of backpacks, bedding, blankets, books, clothes racks, coat racks, comforters, furniture, furniture hardware, lamps, mirrors, mobiles, picture frames, pillows, posters, quilts, rugs, sheets, soap, storage containers, stuffed animals, toys, wall hangings, window treatments and hardware therefore (U.S. Reg. No. 2,311,423);
THE LAND OF NOD for mail order and retail store services in the field of home furnishings and accessories, bedding, storage, soap, backpacks, collectibles, books, toys, picture albums and picture frames (U.S. Reg. No. 2,944,697) and
THE LAND OF NOD for retail store services in the field of home furnishings and accessories, bedding, storage, soap, backpacks, collectibles, books, toys, picture albums and picture frames (U.S. Reg. No. 2,846,100).
The Land of Nod ("Complainant") headquartered in Morton Grove, IL operates as retail and online and catalogue store specializing in children’s furniture and child related house wares. Complainant established itself as an online presence within the industry in 1995 and currently employs a staff of between 100 and 150 employees. Complainant currently maintains annuals revenue between 55 and 65 million dollars.
A market innovator since 1996, Complainant business steadily grew and continues to do so. As such, in 2000, Complainant partnered with housewares retail giant, Crate and Barrel. Since then, Complainant has enjoyed a steady stream of success with revenue growth and business expansion.
Complainant's website can be found at WWW.LANDOFNOD.COM. Since its launch in 1996, the Land of Nod website has been well received, with approximately 781,123 visitors during the month of December 2010 alone. Complainant has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertisement and promotion of the LAND OF NOD marks on the Internet through its websites located at WWW.LANDOFNOD.COM and WWW.THELANDOFNOD.COM. Land of Nod was named one of the top Internet Retailers of 2009.
Complainant clearly continues to establish itself in the child retail services industry and enjoys wide consumer and acceptance of its brand. In addition, Complainant owns the LAND OF NOD Marks cited in Section 4(c) above for which it has obtained federal trademark registrations. None of these federal mark registrations have been abandoned cancelled or revoked with the USPTO. Therefore, based on its federal trademark registrations and extensive use, Complainant owns the exclusive right to use the LAND OF NOD marks for mail order and online retail services specializing in children’s furniture and child related house wares.
[a.] The Disputed Domain Name(s) are nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's Marks.
i. By virtue of its federal trademark and/or service mark registrations, Complainant is the owner of the Complainant's Mark(s). See, e.g., United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, NAF Claim No. FA0707001036202 ("Panels have long recognized Complainant's registration of a mark with a trademark authority is sufficient to confer rights in the mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i)").
ii. When comparing the Disputed Domain Name(s) to the Complainant's Mark(s), the relevant comparison to be made is between only the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name(s) and the Complainant's Mark(s). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, WIPO Case No.D2000-0429 (finding that the top-level domain, 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 Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., NAF Claim No. FA0304000153545 ("[t]he 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.")
iii. The Disputed Domain Name(s) is confusingly similar to Complainant's Mark(s) and main website WWW.LANDOFNOD.COM by simply omitting the period before “www”. Previous Panels have found this to be an example of typosquatting. In this instance, the Panel should find the changes made to Complainant’s mark sufficient to mitigate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy 4(a)(i), which also includes the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” See also 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 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.”).
iv. The Disputed Domain Name(s) are, simply put, a classic example of "typosquatting". The practice of typosquatting is designed to take advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, which means the names must be confusingly similar by design. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441 (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); Caterpillar Inc. v. Center for Ban on Drugs, NAF Claim No. FA0603000661437 ("the omission of a single letter from Complainant's mark does not adequately distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark"); and Victoria's Secret v. Zuccarini, NAF Claim No. FA0010000095762 (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's marks).
[b.] Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name(s) for the following reasons:
i. Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. See Policy ¶4(c)(ii). Where, as here, "the WHOIS information suggests Respondent is known as "an entity other than the trademark associated with Complainant, and Complainant has not "licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating Complainant's... mark," a Panel should find that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, NAF Claim No. FA0707001036202.
ii. Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way.
iii. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant's Mark in a domain name.
iv. Respondent has ignored Complainant's attempts to resolve the dispute outside of this administrative proceeding. Complainant notes that if the owner of the Domain Name fails to respond to this Complaint, it is presumed that the owner has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Mattel, Inc. v. Rave Club Berlin, FA106115 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2002), citing Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents' failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names). Further, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) states that when "the complainant has made a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to show by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interest in the domain name at issue."
v. Respondent is using (some or all of) the Disputed Domain Name(s) to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business. Presumably, Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from these linked websites. As such, Respondent is not using the domain name(s) to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services as allowed under Policy; 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as allowed under Policy; 4(c)(iii). See 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24HourNames.com-Quality Domains For Sale, FA 187429 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 26, 2003) (holding that Respondent's use of the 24hrsfitness.comgt, 24-hourfitness.com.gt and 24hoursfitness.com.gt, domain names to redirect Internet users to a website featuring advertisements and links to Complainant's competitors could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent's website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names).
vi. The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s) was September 3, 2005, which is significantly after Complainant's first use in commerce, June 1, 1996, as specified in their relevant registration with the USPTO.
vii. The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s) was September 3, 2005, which is significantly after Complainant's registration of their relevant Mark with the USPTO on February 16, 1999.
viii. The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s) was September 3, 2005, which is significantly after Complainant on December 30, 1997.
[c.] The Disputed Domain Name(s) should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith for the following reasons:
i. Respondent's typosquatting behavior is, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith. See Canadian Tire Corp. v. domain adm'r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because the respondent "created 'a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site or location'…. through Respondent's persistent practice of 'typosquatting'"); see also Nat'l Ass'n of Prof'l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) ("Typosquatting ... is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.").
ii. Respondent’s bad faith is further shown by the Respondent using the Disputed Domain Name(s) website in connection with generating revenue as a “click through” website by using the Complainant’s registered trademark(s) and providing links to the services and products offered by the Complainant to take advantage of Complainant’s well known mark to achieve a wrongful competitive advantage and commercial gain. In WIPO Decision D2008-1470, AIDA Cruises German Branch of Societá di Crociere Mercurio S.r.l., v. Caribbean Online International Ltd. / BelgiumDomains “the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name for the purposes of commercial gain by offering links to other companies’ websites related to cruises and travels, in the form of a “clickthrough” website. In similar cases, many prior panel decisions have recognised [sic] that the registration of domain names to be used in a “click-through” website has to be considered as an evidence of bad faith (see, e.g. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation., WIPO Case No. D2007-0440; Early Times Distillers Company v. IP Admin / DNAV ASSOCS, WIPO Case No. D2007-1812; HBOS Plc v. Whois Protection, WIPO Case No. D2007-1605)”.
iii. Respondent is a recalcitrant, serial cybersquatter /typosquatter. Searches through the NAF and WIPO UDRP decision databases reveal that Respondent has engaged in an ongoing pattern of such behavior.
iv. Respondent holds registrations on other domain names that appear to be straight forward examples of typosquatting. Although those names are not directly involved in this complaint, they serve as further evidence of bad faith intent on the part of Respondent. See Policy ¶4(b)(ii) and Time Warner Inc. v. Zone MP3, NAF Claim No. FA0706001008035 (typosquatting combined with registration of as few as four domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to "protected marks" is sufficient to establish a pattern leading to bad faith). See also Citigroup Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, NAF Claim No. FA0704000964679.
v. Respondent has caused the websites reachable by (some or all of) the Disputed Domain Name(s) to display content and/or keywords directly related to Complainant's business. This serves as further evidence of bad faith intent because it removes any doubt as to whether or not the misspelling was intentionally designed to improperly capitalize on Complainant's famous Mark and its related business.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant Meadowbrook, L.L.C. d/b/a The Land of Nod operates a retail and online catalogue store specializing in children’s furniture and child related house wares. Complainant owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for the THE LAND OF NOD mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,224,541 registered February 16, 1999).
Respondent Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited registered the <wwwlandofnod.com> domain name on September 3, 2005. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website that displays numerous third-party links to competing and unrelated businesses.
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 Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order 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;
(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 has presented the Panel with evidence it owns several trademark registrations with the USPTO for the THE LAND OF NOD mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,224,541 registered February 16, 1999). Previous panels have found such evidence is sufficient for a complainant to establish rights in its mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i) regardless of the location of the respondent. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence). This Panel agrees and finds Complainant has supplied sufficient evidence to establish rights in the THE LAND OF NOD mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The <wwwlandofnod.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE LAND OF NOD mark. Respondent has chosen to use a variation of Complainant’s mark in the domain name that differs from the mark only by removing the term “THE” and the spaces between the terms. Respondent also removes the period after the “www” portion of the domain name while adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Previous panels have determined such differences to a mark are not sufficient to render the disputed domain name distinct from the mark. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i)); see also 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 WestJet Air Ctr., Inc. v. W. Jets LLC, FA 96882 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2001) (finding that the <westjets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, where the complainant holds the WEST JET AIR CENTER mark). This Panel agrees with this precedent and finds the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant contends Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwlandofnod.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint). Out of an abundance of caution, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c).
Complainant claims it has not sponsored or given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark in any way and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel notes the WHOIS information, as provided by Complainant, identifies “Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited” as the domain name registrant. The Panel finds there is no evidence on record indicating Respondent is commonly known by the <wwwlandofnod.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under 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 Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant further claims Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not grant it rights in the disputed domain name. Complainant’s screenshot shows the disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring several links headings such as, “Crib Bedding,” “Kids Furniture,” Children’s Furniture,” “Travel,” and “Hotels,” among others. Some of the resolving third-party links are to Complainant’s competitors while others resolve to unrelated businesses. The Panel finds Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy ¶4(c)(i)); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant has demonstrated a good portion of the third-party links placed on Respondent’s resolving website direct Internet users to Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds such use establishes Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii) because such use of a confusingly similar domain name likely disrupts Complainant’s business by diverting its potential customers to its competitors in the industry. 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 Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors).
Complainant claims Respondent’s setting up of a “click through” website for which it likely receives revenue for each misdirected Internet user further demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith. The Panel agrees with Complainant (and in the absence of a Response) determines Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) by using the disputed domain name to attract and mislead consumers for its own profit. 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 Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
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 <wwwlandofnod.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: January 24, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page