The Sports Authority Michigan Inc. v.
Jason Todd Banks
Claim Number: FA0307000173374
The Sports Authority Michigan Inc. v.
Clayton M. Banks
Claim Number: FA0307000173376
The Sports Authority Michigan Inc. v.
Angelina Edouard
Claim Number: FA 0307000175287
PARTIES
The
Complainant in each of these consolidated cases is The Sports Authority Michigan Inc., (“Complainant”or “TSA”) Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida, represented by Robert S. Gurwin of Rader Fishman &
Grauer PLLC. The Respondent in FA 173374 is Jason Todd Banks, Miami, Florida, who is representing
himself. The Respondent in FA173376 is Clayton M. Banks, Coral Springs,
Florida, represented by Jason Todd Banks.
The Respondent in FA175287 is Angelina
Edouard, Miami, Florida, represented by Jason Todd Banks (collectively
“Respondents).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue in FA173374 are
<sportsauthoity.com>, <sportsauthrity.com>, <sportsauthroity.com>, <thesportautority.com>, <thesportsaurthority.com>, <thesportsauthoity.com>, <thesportsauthroity.com>, <wwwlsportsauthority.com> and <wwwlthesportsauthority.com> registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.,
and <thesportauthority.com> registered with Domain
People Inc.
The domain names at issue in FA173376 are
<sprotauthority.com>, <thesportauthroity.com>, and <www.thesportsauthroity.com>
registered with Wild West Domains.
The domain
names at issue in FA175287
are sportdauthority.com>, <sportsaithority.com>, <sportsauhority.com>, <sportsaurhority.com>, <sportsautgority.com>, <sportsauthirity.com>, <sportsauthoeity.com>, <sportsauthoriry.com>, <sportsauthoritu.com>, <sportsauthoriyy.com>, <sportsauthoroty.com>, <sportsauthoruty.com>, <sportsauthotity.com>,
<sportsauthprity.com>, <sportsautjority.com>,
<sportsauyhority.com>,
<sportsaythority.com>, <thesportsauthoriry.com>,
<thesportsauthoritu.com>, <thesportsauthoroty.com>
registered with Wild West Domains.
PANEL
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.
Bruce
E. Meyerson as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY CLAIM NUMBER FA 173374
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on July 28, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on July 29, 2003.
On
July 29, 2003 and July 30, 2003, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to
the Forum that the domain names <sportsauthoity.com>, <sportsauthrity.com>, <sportsauthroity.com>, <thesportautority.com>, <thesportsaurthority.com>, <thesportsauthoity.com>, <thesportsauthroity.com>, <wwwlsportsauthority.com> and <wwwlthesportsauthority.com> are registered with Wild West
Domains, Inc. and that Respondent Jason Todd Banks is the current registrant of
the names. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the
Wild West Domains, Inc. 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
July 29, 2003, Domain People Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <thesportauthority.com>
is registered with Domain People
Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain People
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain People Inc.
registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes
brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On
July 30, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 19,
2003 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@sportsauthoity.com, postmaster@sportsauthrity.com, postmaster@sportsauthroity.com,
postmaster@thesportauthority.com, postmaster@thesportautority.com, postmaster@thesportsaurthority.com,
postmaster@thesportsauthoity.com, postmaster@thesportsauthroity.com, postmaster@wwwlsportsauthority.com
and postmaster@wwwlthesportsauthority.com> by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 19, 2003.
On
August 22, 2003, Complainant submitted a timely and complete Additional
Submission.
A
timely, complete Additional Submission was received from Respondent on August
25, 2003.
On September 4, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E.
Meyerson as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY CLAIM NUMBER FA 173376
Complainant
submitted a Complaint in FA 173376 to the National Arbitration Forum (the
“Forum”) electronically on July 29, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on July 30, 2003.
On
July 29, 2003, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain names <sprotauthority.com>, <thesportauthroity.com> and <wwwthesportsauthroity.com> are registered with Wild West
Domains, Inc. and that Respondent Clayton M. Banks is the current registrant of
the name. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild
West Domains, Inc. 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
July 31, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 20,
2003 by which Respondent could file a
Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and
fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as
technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sprotauthority.com,
postmaster@thesportauthroity.com and postmaster@wwwthesportsauthroity.com by
e-mail.
A
timely Response was received on August 20, 2003. However, the Response was not
found to be in compliance with Rule 5(a) because no exhibits and/or attachments
were received.
Complainant
submitted a complete and timely Additional Submission on August 25, 2003.
On
the same date, Respondent submitted an Additional Submission, which was
determined to be complete and timely.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY CLAIM NUMBER FA 175287
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on July 29, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on July 29, 2003.
On
August 4, 2003, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain names <sportdauthority.com>, <sportsaithority.com>, <sportsauhority.com>, <sportsaurhority.com>, <sportsautgority.com>, <sportsauthirity.com>, <sportsauthoeity.com>, <sportsauthoriry.com>, <sportsauthoritu.com>, <sportsauthoriyy.com>, <sportsauthoroty.com>, <sportsauthoruty.com>, <sportsauthotity.com>, <sportsauthprity.com>, <sportsautjority.com>, <sportsauyhority.com>, <sportsaythority.com>, <thesportsauthoriry.com>, <thesportsauthoritu.com> and <thesportsauthoroty.com> are registered with Wild West
Domains, Inc. and that Respondent Angelina
Edouard is the current registrant of the names. Wild West Domains, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, Inc. 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
August 5, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of August 25,
2003 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted
to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on
Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts,
and to postmaster@sportdauthority.com, postmaster@sportsaithority.com, postmaster@sportsauhority.com,
postmaster@sportsaurhority.com, postmaster@sportsautgority.com, postmaster@sportsauthirity.com,
postmaster@sportsauthoeity.com, postmaster@sportsauthoriry.com, postmaster@sportsauthoritu.com,
postmaster@sportsauthoriyy.com, postmaster@sportsauthoroty.com, postmaster@sportsauthoruty.com,
postmaster@sportsauthotity.com, postmaster@sportsauthprity.com, postmaster@sportsautjority.com,
postmaster@sportsauyhority.com, postmaster@sportsaythority.com, postmaster@thesportsauthoriry.com,
postmaster@thesportsauthoritu.com and postmaster@thesportsauthoroty.com by
e-mail.
A
timely Response was received on August 19, 2003. However, the Response was not
found to be in compliance with Rule 5(a) because no exhibits and/or attachments
were received.
On
August 25, 2003, a timely and complete Additional Submission was received from
Complainant to address the Response.
CONSOLIDATION
On August 29, 2003, Complaint filed a motion to
consolidate Claim Number FA 173374 with Claim Number FA173376 and Claim Number FA 175287. No objection to the motion was filed. On September 18, 2003, the Panel entered an
order consolidating all three matters initiated by Complainant The Sports
Authority Michigan, Inc. against respondents Jason Todd Banks, Clayton M.
Banks, and Angelina Edouard.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain names that are the subject of each of the three
complaints be transferred from each respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant (Including Additional
Submissions)
Complainant The Sports Authority Michigan Inc. contends that
but for the intentional misspellings of the disputed domain names, each is substantially identical in
appearance, sound and meaning to Complainant’s marks. Thus, Complainant contends that each of Respondents’
registrations is clearly intended to misdirect web traffic of individuals who
are looking for the Complainant’s URLs.
TSA contends that other ICANN panels have consistently concluded that
domain names that deviate insignificantly from a famous mark are rendered
confusingly similar under ICANN Policy 4(a)(1).
TSA further contends that the totality of circumstances
surrounding Respondents’ registration and use of the disputed domain
demonstrates that Respondents have no legitimate rights or interests in the
domain names. TSA asserts that
Respondents have never offered bona fide goods or services under the SPORTS
AUTHORITY and THE SPORTS AUTHORITY marks as required by ICANN Policy 4(c)(i). On the contrary, TSA contends that
Respondents’ interest in each of the disputed names is its value as a name
which is confusingly similar in relation to the domain names associated with
Complainant’s web sites:
SPORTSAUTHORITY.COM and THESPORTSAUTHORITY.COM. TSA contends that such use is not in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Moreover, TSA contends that Respondents are
not, and have never been, commonly known by the names SPORTS AUTHORITY or THE
SPORTS AUTHORITY as contemplated by ICANN Policy 4(c)(ii).
Furthermore, according to TSA, under
paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the ICANN Policy, Respondents’ conduct cannot constitute
“noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly
divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” Complainant states that it recently became
aware that upon registering the domain names, Respondents also signed up for
its Affiliate Program under which TSA pays a commission to those whose websites
direct Internet shoppers to TSA. Thus,
TSA contends that Respondents registered the names as part of a scheme to
attract shoppers looking for TSA’s website.
If a shopper makes a purchase from TSA, Respondents will earn and be
paid a commission by TSA. Therefore,
TSA argues, Respondents’ conduct is the antithesis of the ICANN Policy
4(C)(iii) criteria because Respondents’ registration of the domain names
demonstrates an intent to reap commercial gain from Complainant’s marks.
Finally, TSA asserts that Respondents’ registration and use
of the disputed domain names is clearly in bad faith. According to Complainant it is “inconceivable” that Respondents
could have registered the domain names now in dispute without actual knowledge
of Complainant’s rights. TSA contends
that under ICANN Policy, registration of a domain name which one knows to be
identical or confusingly similar to another’s trademark is evidence of bad
faith. TSA contends that the evidence
conclusively supports a finding that Respondents have acted in bad faith
through their pattern of registration and use of the many different
“typo-squatted” domain names intended to attract web traffic and reap
commercial gain.
B. Respondent (Including Additional
Submissions)
Respondents contend that this case is about
a “renegade trademark owner who, in bad faith, preys upon small legitimate
internet marketers.” Respondents
contend that TSA comes to this proceeding with “unclean hands” because it
claims to hold 165 domain names but in reality, Respondents assert that all but
two resolve to the browser default message “this page cannot be
displayed.” Respondents contend that
TSA itself makes use of the principle of misspelled domains in furtherance of
its business. Furthermore, Respondents assert that Complainant has “slept on
its rights” by not using due diligence to acquire any or all of the domain
names it now seeks to take.
The Respondents
acknowledge and admit that they have a financial interest in “scenarios” where
an Internet user inadvertently mistypes the Complainant’s trademarked names and
instead types one of the domain names they have registered. They contend that such legitimate commercial
gain, without misleadingly diverting consumers or tarnishing Complainant’s
marks, does not violate ICANN Policy.
Respondents
deny that their domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s marks. To the contrary,
Respondents’ main argument is that under trademark law, the key element for
trademark infringement is the existence of a likelihood of confusion among
consumers as to the source of a good or service. Respondents submit that if the Internet user’s intended final
destination is reached without unnecessary or unreasonable delay and does not
ultimately resolve to a website other than the Complainant’s website, there is
no likelihood of confusion.
Furthermore, Respondents assert, they do not create the consumers'
confusion, but merely take advantage of confusion already in existence.
FINDINGS
The record in this matter reflects the
following.
TSA and its related companies are a large
national full-line sporting goods retailer in the United States. TSA
operates 201 retail stores, and a full service e-commerce website located at
its preferred URL, www.thesportsauthority.com
and www.sportsauthority.com.
During 1999, TSA launched its Internet
retail site, www.thesportsauthority.com.
TSA’s primary
trademarks and service marks are SPORTS AUTHORITY and THE SPORTS
AUTHORITY. TSA adopted the name and
mark THE SPORTS AUTHORITY in June of 1987 and owns rights in the mark AUTHORITY
which date back to 1981.
TSA was the
first North American business to adopt and use the mark THE SPORTS AUTHORITY,
and the first retailer to adopt and use the word AUTHORITY as the core element
of its identity. According to the
record in this case, TSA uses its
family of AUTHORITY marks, including the marks SPORTS AUTHORITY and THE SPORTS
AUTHORITY, with more than just sporting goods or sporting goods retailing. For example, TSA advertises, promotes and
sponsors a very wide variety of amateur and professional sports teams, events
and arenas.
These uses of
the marks SPORTS AUTHORITY and THE SPORTS AUTHORITY and the other AUTHORITY
marks have generated large numbers of “consumer impressions.” Thus, these marks are well known and
associated by the trade and consumers throughout the United States with TSA and
TSA’s goods and services.
TSA has held its primary domain name,
SPORTSAUTHORITY.COM, since July 1995.
Since that time, TSA has also registered a number of other domain names
incorporating the AUTHORITY marks, including THESPORTSAUTHORITY.COM. TSA has
expended substantial time, effort and resources to develop its website as the
leading retail sporting goods Internet website.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2)
the
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 provided evidence of a number of
trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
including the SPORTS AUTHORITY mark (Reg. No. 1,527,526 registered on February
28, 1989) and the THE SPORTS AUTHORITY mark (Reg. No.1,529,035 registered on
March 7, 1989) related to retail store services featuring sporting equipment
and clothing. These trademark
registrations establish its rights in the SPORTS AUTHORITY mark and the THE
SPORTS AUTHORITY mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002)
(registration of a mark is prima facie evidence
of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently
distinctive); Men’s Wearhouse, Inc.
v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark
law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive
and have acquired secondary meaning.”).
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to
its SPORTS AUTHORITY and THE SPORTS AUTHORITY marks because the domain names
appropriate one of Complainant’s marks and merely incorporate a typographical
error, an omission or addition of a letter, or the transposition of letters in
the protected mark. These “errors” or
modifications to Complainant’s marks do not significantly distinguish the
disputed domain names from Complainant’s marks within the meaning of Policy ¶
4(a)(i). Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13,
2000) (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); Victoria’s Secret
v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (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); Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding
<googel.com> to be confusingly similar to 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”).
Respondents’ reliance on upon federal trademark law with respect
to this issue is misplaced. Respondents
assert that federal trademark law is controlling in this case, and, in
particular, the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Holiday Inns, Inc. v. 800 Reservation, Inc.,
86 F.3d 619 (9th Cir. 1996) is asserted to be dispositive of the
Complaint in favor of Respondents. In
that case, Holiday Inns claimed that the defendants violated the Lanham Act by
using Holiday Inns’s trademark reservation phone number. The Holiday Inns registration number was
1-800-465-4329; the hotel registration number used by the defendants was
1-800-405-4329. The defendants
contended they did not use a variation of the Holiday Inns number but a number
that was neither phonetically nor visually similar to Holiday Inns’s
trademark. The Ninth Circuit
acknowledged that courts that had previously considered similar issues had
ruled in favor of the trademark owner, nevertheless the Ninth Circuit chose not
to do so.
Assuming that the Holiday
Inns decision is correctly decided it is nevertheless quite distinguishable
from this case. Important to the
Court was its determination that to prove a Lanham Act violation the plaintiff
must show that the defendant either used the plaintiff’s mark or “created
the confusion.” In contrast under ICANN
rules, to prevail, the complainant must show that the challenged domain names
are either identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. Moreover, unlike in Holiday Inns, the disputed phone number was a valid number. Here, on the other hand, the disputed domain
names are not existing words with independent meaning, but misspelled words
intended to capture business for Respondents from unwary consumers. Thus, here, unlike in Holiday Inns, Respondents have indeed “created the confusion.”
The
parties agree that Respondents have registered with Complainant’s Affiliate
Program. Pursuant to this program, Complainant
pays a commission to those whose websites direct Internet users to
Complainant’s website. Thus, Internet users who make the relevant typing errors
while seeking Complainant’s website will be redirected through Respondents’
websites to Complainant’s website. For each Internet user who purchases goods
from Complainant’s website after arriving in this fashion, Respondents are paid
a commission by the Complainant.
Respondents’ use of the disputed domain names to earn commissions from
Internet users making inadvertent typing errors is neither a bona fide offering
of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Domhold Co.,
FA 135011 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (finding that registering a domain
name which differs by one letter from complainant’s commercial website, and
using that domain name to redirect Internet consumers to complainant’s website
as a part of complainant’s affiliate program is not a bona fide offering of
goods or services nor a noncommercial use of the domain name); Sports
Auth. Michigan, Inc. v. Szabo, FA 139694 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 4, 2003)(use
of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to
complainant’s website and earning a commission from complainant’s affiliate
program as a reward for infringing on its trademark without license or
authorization is not a bona fide offering of goods or services); Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Jablome, FA 124861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (by signing up
for complainant’s affiliate program upon registering the domain name--a
misspelling of complainant’s mark--respondent intended to profit off the domain
name at complainant’s expense thereby evidencing a lack of rights and
legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)).
Furthermore, by registering the domain names at issue, Complainant
points out that Respondents have breached the terms of the Affiliate Program
Agreement. As an Affiliate, one must
not “take any action which may cause deception, confusion or otherwise blurs,
tarnishes or dilutes the quality of the Licensed Contract or the goodwill
associated therewith, all as shall be determined” by TSA. The term “Licensed Contract” is defined to
include TSA’s trademarks. Furthermore,
other terms of the affiliate relationship expressly prohibit “typo-squatting.”
Finally,
it is undisputed that Respondents have never been commonly known by the marks
SPORTS AUTHORITY, THE SPORTS AUTHORITY or any typographical derivations of
those marks. Thus, Respondents have failed to demonstrate any rights to or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)
(ii). Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arab. Forum Jan.
23, 2001) (finding that respondent does not have rights in a domain name when
respondent is not known by the mark); RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat.
Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a
showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to
registration of the domain name to prevail").
Complainant maintains that Respondents have
registered and are using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondents’
registration and use of misspelled versions of Complainant’s marks to earn
sales commissions through Complainant’s Affiliate Program demonstrates
Respondents’ registration and use in bad faith. Respondents’ registration and
use of the disputed domain names, each a minor typographical derivation of one
of Complainant’s marks, demonstrates Respondents’ bad faith registration and
use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Sports
Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002)
(“[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate
program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks
and primary Internet domain names”); Sports
Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Internet Hosting, FA 124516 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4,
2002) (redirecting Internet users attempting to reach a website to gain a
profit off of the complainant is one example of bad faith use and registration
under ICANN rules).
In essence, because of Respondents’
misleading conduct, Complainant is required to pay to Respondents a commission,
not due to any true service provided by Respondents, but only due to
Respondents’ misleading conduct. Thus, in reality, this is not a benefit to
Complainant, but an unnecessary skimming of its profits. It is not surprising that other panels have
repeatedly found such conduct to amount to bad faith. E.g., Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Szabo, FA 139694 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2,
2003).
Respondents’ registration of numerous names similar to the
trademarks registered by Complainant appears to place the Respondents in the
category of “typo-trollers.”
Many cybersquatters count on Internet users to make an
errant keystroke in their search for a particular Web site. Trolling for typo-driven hits, these
chiselers register misspelled trademarks as domain names in the hope that a
poor speller or a fat-fingered typist will land at their Web site rather than
the intended Web site. A great
number of ICANN panels have taken domain names away from typo-trollers.
R.
Badgley, Domain Name Disputes § 6.12 at 6-50 (2002)(emphasis added); e.g., Microsoft v. Microsof.com a/k/a Tarek Ahmed, No. D2000-0548 (WIPO
July 21, 2000); Eddie Bauer v. White,
No. AF-0246 (eRes Aug. 1, 2000); Xerox v.
Stonybrook Investments, No. D2001-0380 (WIPO May 22, 2001).
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief requested shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sportsauthoity.com>, <sportsauthrity.com>, <sportsauthroity.com>, <thesportauthority.com>, <thesportautority.com>, <thesportsaurthority.com>, <thesportsauthoity.com>, <thesportsauthroity.com>, <wwwlsportsauthority.com> and <wwwlthesportsauthority.com>, <sprotauthority.com>, <thesportauthroity.com>,
<www.thesportsauthroity.com>, <sportdauthority.com>, <sportsaithority.com>, <sportsauhority.com>, <sportsaurhority.com>, <sportsautgority.com>, <sportsauthirity.com>, <sportsauthoeity.com>, <sportsauthoriry.com>, <sportsauthoritu.com>, <sportsauthoriyy.com>, <sportsauthoroty.com>, <sportsauthoruty.com>, <sportsauthotity.com>,
<sportsauthprity.com>, <sportsautjority.com>,
<sportsauyhority.com>,
<sportsaythority.com>, <thesportsauthoriry.com>,
<thesportsauthoritu.com>, <thesportsauthoroty.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondents to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: October 6, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page