UBS AG v. Yury Iofe / InMotion Hosting, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1608001689195
Complainant is UBS AG (“Complainant”), represented by Patrick J. Jennings of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Yury Iofe / InMotion Hosting, Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Mark C. Johnson, Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ubssolution.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.
The undersigned each respectively 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 a Panelist in this proceeding.
Scott R. Austin, Esq., as Chair
Dawn Osborne, Esq., as Co-Panelist
Hon. Bruce E. Meyerson (Ret.), as Co-Panelist
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 15, 2016; the Forum received payment on August 17, 2016.
On August 15, 2016, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ubssolution.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 August 17, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 12, 2016 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@ubssolution.com. Also on August 17, 2016, 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 September 9, 2016.
On September 22, 2016, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the Forum appointed Scott R. Austin, Esq., as Chair, and Dawn Osborne, Esq. and Hon. Bruce E. Meyerson (Ret.), as Co-Panelists.
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 makes the following contentions:
1. Complainant, UBS AG, is a corporation organized under the laws of Switzerland and is one of the largest financial services firms in the world, operating in over 50 countries with approximately 60,000 employees.
2. Complainant has used the UBS mark since at least as early as 1962 to identify Complainant as the source of a variety of banking and financial services around the world, including investment banking, securities brokerage, and lending services.
3. Complainant owns a large number of trademark registrations for its UBS mark and the mark in the European Union and WIPO providing trademark protection in countries all over the world from Albania to Zambia, and has obtained trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for a myriad of financial services, including, but not limited to, “banking, investment banking, and securities brokerage services in International Class 36 (Reg. No. 1,573,828, registered December 26, 1989), “financing services” and “ financial investment in the field of real estate” in International Class 36 (Reg. No. 2,851,071, registered June 8, 2004 ); and “consultation services in the field of banking, commodities, investments, real estate, mortgage, mutual funds, securities, stocks, capital investment, credit and credit inquiry” in International Class 36 (Reg. No. 2,918,462, registered January 18, 2005).
4. Complainant’s UBS mark is inherently distinctive, strong, famous, and deserving of a broad scope of protection.
5. Panelists in prior UDRP proceedings have found Complainant’s UBS mark to be well known and famous for financial services.
6. Respondent registered the <ubssolution.com> disputed domain name on June 22, 2010, nearly five decades after Complainant began using its UBS mark in commerce.
7. Complainant owns and operates a web site accessed through the domain name ubs.com, registered since February 15, 1993
8. Respondent’s <ubssolution.com> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UBS mark as the disputed domain name encompasses the UBS mark in its entirety and adds only the generic term “solution” and the generic top-level domain “.com,” which differences are not sufficient to distinguish the domain from Complainant’s mark.
9. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
10. Respondent, comprised of Registrant Yury Iofe, an individual, and Registrant Organization InMotion Hosting, Inc., has no connection with Complainant and is not commonly known by the <ubssolution.com> disputed domain name.
11. Complainant has not authorized Respondent’s use of any of the UBS mark and Respondent has not been a licensee or business partner of Complainant.
12. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to divert users seeking Complainant’s website to the website of Respondent, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
13. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name <ubssolution.com> in bad faith.
14. Respondent registered the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion and falsely suggest a connection between Complainant and Respondent which is being exploited for commercial gain.
15. Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the well-known UBS mark at the time of registration based on the fame and decades of prior use by Complainant of the UBS mark.
B. Respondent makes the following contentions:
1. Respondent created the domain name in June of 2010 to promote and market its services.
2. The domain name was chosen as it is representative of the acronym of Respondent’s business plus the last term in its name, Universal Business Structured Solution.
3. Respondent’s operations are limited to debt and equity financing in the small business market and as such does not compete with Complainant, thus alleviating concerns of confusing similarity.
4. Neither Complainant nor Respondent has submitted one instance of consumer confusion resulting from Respondent’s domain name.
5. Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
6. Respondent has been transacting business using the domain name
for a period of over six years and the doctrine of laches should bar recovery by Complainant.
7. Respondent has spent over $200,000 marketing and advertising its services since creation of its website.
8. Respondent is not redirecting users to Complainant’s website or confusing consumers into believing there is a connection between Complainant and Respondent, rather Respondent is directing users to Respondent’s landing page.
9. Respondent registered the domain name in good faith without any intent to divert consumers from Complainant or that any confusion would result.
10. Complainant’s assertions of bad faith are without support and are belied by the evidence provided to show Respondent’s lack of bad faith when registering the domain name.
Complainant has been continuously using and promoting its UBS mark since at least as early as 1962 as the source of a myriad of financial services, including financing services, financial investment in the field of real estate and consultation services in the field of banking, commodities, investments, real estate, mortgage, mutual funds, securities, stocks, capital investment, credit and credit inquiry.
Complainant owns and has established rights in the UBS mark through evidence submitted in Annex 3 attached to the Complaint of trademark registrations in the United States, Europe, and numerous jurisdictions around the world.
Complainant’s UBS mark was registered and well known in the U.S and many other countries around the world well before Respondent registered its disputed domain name on June 22, 2010.
Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UBS mark because it is comprised of Complainant’s UBS mark in its entirety as the first part of the disputed domain name, and adds only the generic term “solutions” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” to Complainant’s mark, which additional terms are inconsequential to overcome a finding of confusing similarity.
Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies Respondent Yury Iofe as registrant and InMotion Hosting, Inc. as registrant’s organization of the disputed domain name.
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or by Complainant’s UBS mark, nor is Respondent licensed by Complainant to use its UBS mark.
Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The disputed domain name has been used to offer financial services which are not connected to the Complainant and to divert users seeking Complainant’s website to the website of Respondent for Respondent’s commercial gain.
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name <ubssolution> 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 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, UBS AG, is a financial services provider operating in over 50 countries with approximately 60,000 employees. Complainant owns a large number of trademark registrations for its UBS mark and the mark in the European Union and WIPO providing trademark protection in countries all over the world from Albania to Zambia. See Compl., at attached Annex 3. In support of its claim to have rights in the UBS mark in connection with its business providing financial services, Complainant has provided copies of certificates of registration with the USPTO for, among other financial services, “banking, investment banking, and securities brokerage services in International Class 36 (Reg. No. 1,573,828, registered December 26, 1989), “financing services” and “ financial investment in the field of real estate” in International Class 36 (Reg. No. 2,851,071, registered June 8, 2004 ); and “consultation services in the field of banking, commodities, investments, real estate, mortgage, mutual funds, securities, stocks, capital investment, credit and credit inquiry” in International Class 36 (Reg. No. 2,918,462, registered January 18, 2005). See id.
Prior Panels have found that registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate a complainant’s rights in a mark. See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).); BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).); BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).) This Panel finds Complainant has proved its rights in the UBS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent contends that there can be no confusing similarity due to differences in the services provided by Complainant and Respondent. The Panel finds that the financial services and financing services referenced in Complainant’s certificates of registration for the UBS mark and as displayed on Respondent’s website are related and substantially similar to support a finding of confusing similarity based on the cases noted below. Respondent attempts to refute a finding of similarity by submitting a declaration by Yury Iofe, registrant of the disputed domain name and president of the registrant organization. See Resp., at attached Annex Exhibit A. While the Panel is supportive of the use of declarations as evidence, inconsistencies and contradictions between statements in the declaration and statements by Respondent in other evidence it submitted, namely, its website, controvert and thereby seriously undercut the weight given to the declaration. For example, Respondent through registrant in his declaration, states that Respondent’s business does not “engage in” (sic) institutions and institutional investors. See Resp., at Annex Exhibit A, p. 2, para. 5. To the contrary, however, the opening paragraph on Respondent’s website touts “Institutional Funding Available for a Qualified Project” then devotes an entire page on its website to institutions and institutional investors, providing in pertinent part:
“Institutional Investors Can Turn to UB Solution for Innovative Funding Options. Success in institutional investment depends on the interplay of several variables” . . . Awareness about the local and general rules governing the current institutional investment processes and contemporary knowledge of the updated regulations in a wide array of matters is important to avoid legal complications later.” See Resp., at Annex Exhibit C, p. 16. The Panel notes Respondent’s declaration submitted in Response Annex Exhibit A, also states $200,000 has been spent on advertising, but also notes that Respondent provided no invoice or other documentary evidence of such expenditures. Likewise, Respondent submitted no documentary evidence in support of any the “small business market funding between $5-20 million” referenced in its Response and on its website.
Based on these contradictions and a lack of documentary evidence to support statements made in the declaration, such as spending on advertising, the panel finds the declaration unpersuasive to overcome the Panel’s findings in this case, including the Panel’s assessment of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s UBS mark in which it has established trademark rights.
Complainant next claims that Respondent’s disputed domain, <ubssolution.com>, is confusingly similar to the UBS mark in which Complainant has demonstrated its rights. Respondent’s disputed domain name consists of the entire UBS mark and adds only the generic word “solution” and the gTLD .com. Prior Panels have found that adding a generic term to a mark in a domain name does not alleviate an impression of confusing similarity. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); Westfield Corp. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element); Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).).
Panels have also consistently held that the presence of the gTLD “.com,” is not relevant to an analysis of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See F.R. Burger & Associates, Inc. v. shanshan lin, FA 1623319 (Forum July 9, 2015) (holding, “Respondent’s <frburger.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FRBURGER mark because it differs only by the domain name’s addition of the top-level domain name “.com.”); Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006)(concluding redhat.org disputed domain name identical to complainant's red hat mark because mere addition of gTLD was insufficient to differentiate disputed domain name from complainant’s mark).. This Panel finds, therefore, that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), because Respondent’s disputed domain name <ubssolution.com> is confusingly similar to the UBS mark in which Complainant has established trademark rights.
Doctrine or Defense of Laches
Respondent has raised the defense of laches. One recognized element of laches that has been applied by other Panels is the requirement that the respondent explain fully how the transfer of the domain name will be prejudicial. See generally See craigslist, Inc. v. Craig Solomon Online Services, FA 1445057 (Forum Aug. 13, 2012). Respondent’s submission offers no explanation of how it will be harmed by a transfer of its domain name. Accordingly, despite the delay by Complainant in bringing this proceeding, the Panel declines to adopt Respondent’s laches argument.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (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 (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. Once 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 contends that Respondent has no connection with Complainant, has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has not been a licensee or partner of Complainant. No evidence has been submitted by Respondent to indicate that the parties have associated with each other prior to this UDRP proceeding. WHOIS information associated with the disputed domain name identifies Respondent comprised of “Yury Iofe, an individual, as registrant and “InMotion Hosting, Inc.,” as the registrant organization, neither of which appears to resemble the disputed domain. See Resp., at attached Annex Exhibit B. Panels have relied upon the registrant and registrant organization data set forth in the WHOIS information to determine that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA1504001617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <amazondevice.org>, <amazondevices.org> and <buyamazondevices.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the pertinent WHOIS information identified “Timothy Mays,” “Linda Haley,” and “Edith Barberdi” as registrants of the disputed domain names). The Panel thus finds based on the WHOIS information that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant next argues that Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain name <ubssolution.com>, to divert users seeking Complainant’s website to the website of Respondent, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s domain name resolves to its website landing page titled, “UB Solution” in large letters above the words “Capital Markets Expert.” The Panel notes upon careful review of this title in the current landing page, submitted as part of an attached Annex by both parties, the UB and S comprising the first three letters of this title are in the same or similar font style as used by Complainant in its UBS mark on its landing page submitted by Complainant. In addition the first two letters in Respondent’s title, “UB”, are in the same red color as used by Complainant for the UBS mark on Complainant’s logo on its landing page and other advertising submitted in evidence by Complainant. Compare Compl., at attached Annex 2, p. 11 (UBS advertising materials) and Response, at attached Annex Exhibit E, p.8 (digital image of UBS logo on building signage) with Compl., at attached Annex 4, p. 2 (Respondent’s UB Solution landing page) and Response, at attached Annex Exhibit C, p.13 (Respondent’s UB Solution landing page). In addition Respondent’s title header appears against a background consisting of a range of snow - covered mountains. Complainant is a banking and financial services corporation headquartered in and organized under the laws of Switzerland, a country noted for its snow covered mountains, including the Swiss Alps. At the top of Respondent’s website Respondent lists its services as, “Unsecured Business Loans,” “Corporate Financing,” “Bridge Hard Money,” “Energy Financing,” “Oil/Gas Financing,” and “Mezz Financing.” See Id. Panels have held that using another’s mark or a domain name that is closely reminiscent of another’s well known or famous mark for the purposes of hosting a website for a respondent’s commercial benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 97050 (Forum May 30, 2001) (“[U]nder the “Policy,” Respondent may not utilize close derivations of famous and distinctive trademarks and, thus, profit from Internet users’ misspelling the Internet destinations they desire.”); Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Respondent contends multiple times in its Response to justify its use of the term UBS in the disputed name is a bona fide offering of goods or services, unlikely to confuse consumers of an affiliation with Complainant, because UBS is an acronym for its business trade name Universal Business Structured Solutions and is thus distinguishable due to the term “structured”. Response Annex Exhibit D and the registrant’s declaration in Response Annex Exhibit A show the registrant’s business name is Universal Business Structured Solution, Inc. a New Jersey corporation. The Response focuses heavily on the inclusion of the word “structured” as a distinguishing feature in Respondent’s business name, stating that “consumers can quickly observe that the UBS in [the disputed domain name] refers to the first part of Respondent’s trade name Universal Business Structured” and later states that, on Respondent’s website landing page “where it can be clearly and (sic) inconspicuously seen that ‘UBS’ in the [disputed domain name] is an acronym standing for (sic) “Universal Business Structure”. Resp., at pages 4 and 5. Respondent again relies on the importance of this term when it claims its website documents show Respondent’s “intent to display to those incoming consumers that the [disputed domain name] has no connection to UBS, via its (sic) inconspicuous header . . .”Id. at page 5.
Yet throughout its landing page the term “structured” is omitted from its name, and the business at the Respondent’s website is generally referred to on its website as UB Solution or Universal Solution. Even the audio accompanying a video on Respondent’s landing page under the title “UB Solution. About our process” refers to the business only as “Universal Business” and makes no reference in its name to the term “structured”. While the Panel agrees that Respondent’s printouts in Response Annex Exhibit C from the Internet Archive of Respondent’s landing page headers in 2010 - 2014 do conspicuously show the full trade name of Respondent’s business, the web pages provided from 2015 to date (September 2016) conspicuously do not. Compare Response Annex C pages 1,3,5,6,7 (United Business Structured Solution) with pages 8 and 13 (UB Solution) Considering the importance Respondent gives to the term “structured” to justify its business name as an acronym for UBS, the Panel questions Respondent’s actions since 2015 to delete that portion of its business name from its website. The Panel believes it is questionable whether a business offering bona fide financial services for funding between $5-20 million would allow its business name to be presented on its website in such a vague and ambiguous manner. The Panel notes that Respondent’s removal of the term “structured” from its business name leaving only a space between UB and the S in “solution” does appear to create an impression more closely associated with Complainant’s UBS mark and business. The Panel finds that Respondent has deliberately used a domain name that incorporates a close derivation of another’s mark to benefit commercially, and thus that Respondent’s use is not protected as a legitimate or fair use within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii). As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a) (ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion and falsely suggest a connection between Complainant and Respondent which is being exploited for commercial gain. As stated previously, Respondent’s domain name appears to resolve to a website offering financial services using the heading, “UB Solution” and beneath that on the next line, “Capital Markets Expert.” See Compl., at attached Annex 4. Panels have found bad faith where a respondent commercially gained from creating confusion in the mind of users. See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“the Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”); Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). This Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purposes of profiting by creating confusion as to the source of the website, and finds, therefore, that Respondent has done so in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also argues that Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the UBS mark. Complainant argues that because the UBS mark is well known all over the world in the financial industry, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and trademark rights. While this Panel agrees with prior panels that have not generally regarded constructive notice to be sufficient for a finding of bad faith, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's globally known mark and trademark rights in the financial industry, in use for almost 50 years prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. See Nat'l Patent Servs. Inc. v. Bean, FA 1071869 (Forum Nov. 1, 2007) ("[C]onstructive notice does not support a finding of bad faith registration.").The Panel finds that in this case, however there can clearly be Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith as Respondent, involved in consultation for financial services, including “institutional funding” and “institutional investors” had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its decades old registered and well known UBS mark when registering the domain name that included “ubs” and when using Complainant’s same color and font style in Respondent’s opening title on its website landing page for financial services against a background of snow covered mountains to create an affiliation with Complainant, a Swiss banking corporation. The Panel finds, therefore, that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ubssolution.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Scott R. Austin, Esq., Chair of the Panel
Dawn Osborne, Esq., Co-Panelist
Hon. Bruce E. Meyerson, (Ret.), Co-Panelist
Dated: October 11, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page