|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
C & E Fein
GmbH & Co. d/b/a C & E Fein LLC v. Ky Mierendorff
Claim Number: FA0308000183729
PARTIES
Complainant
is C & E Fein GmbH & Co. d/b/a
C & E Fein LLC, Stuttgart, Germany (“Complainant”) represented by John A. Monocello III, of Cohen & Grigsby P.C. Respondent is Ky Mierendorff, Naples, FL, USA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <feinblades.com>,
registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to
the best of her knowledge has no known conflict
in serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
Anne
M. Wallace, Q.C., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on August 8, 2003; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 11, 2003.
On
August 13, 2003, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <feinblades.com>
is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc.
has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 19, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of September
8, 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@feinblades.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received on September 8, 2003. However, the hard copy of
the Response, required by UDRP Rule #5(b), was not
received before the Response
deadline, making the Response deficient. The Panel chooses to consider
Respondent’s noncompliant Response
in reaching its decision because it is of
the view that refusing to consider the response in these circumstances would be
an extreme
remedy not consistent with the basic principles of due process.
Complainant’s
Additional Submission was received and determined to be compliant with Forum
Supplemental Rule #7 on September 12, 2003.
On September 18, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Anne M. Wallace, Q.C. as Panelist.
RELIEF
SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’
CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Complainant
submits that:
·
The Complaint is based on the
common law and registered trademark "FEIN" (words and design) U.S.
Reg. No. 1,115,952, registered
on April 3, 1979, ("the Trademark")
owned by Fein GmbH and licensed to Fein Power Tools, Inc. (“Fein US”), an
authorized
distributor of FEIN branded products in the United States. Fein GmbH has owned and used the mark for
nearly seventy (70) years since 1934 and has a first use in commerce date of
1956.
·
Fein GmbH has licensed Fein US to
use the Trademark. Pursuant to an
agency agreement (“Agency Agreement”), Fein GmbH authorizes Fein US to be the
exclusive authorized distributor of FEIN
branded products in the United
States. Fein US has been the exclusive
distributor of Fein branded products in the United States since 1980, and Fein
US has used the Trademark
since that time.
·
Both Fein GmbH and Fein US have
used and continue to use the Trademark in connection with the following goods
and services: hand held,
portable electric tools and parts thereof, namely,
drills, hammers, tappers, screwdrivers, impact wrenches, grinders, sheet metal
shears, nibblers, pipe milling machines and saws. Specifically, Fein GmbH and Fein US use the Trademark in
connection with the sale of blades used in the construction industry, for
example, blades used in connection with grout removal, hardwood floor sawing and
caulking/sealant removal. Fein US
provides links on its web site to authorized on-line retailers of FEIN branded
products and to authorized warranty repair
centers.
With
this background, Complainant asserts that the domain name <feinblades.com> incorporates the Trademark in its entirety
and merely adds to it the generic term "blades". Adding a generic word to a trademark renders
the resultant composite confusingly similar to the trademark. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. McSherry,
FA 154589 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003), citing, Arthur Guinness Son &
Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001); see
also Sony Kubushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9,
2000). Therefore, since the domain name
<feinblades.com> is an exact
copy of the trademark (with the addition of a generic term), the domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant's
Trademark.
With respect to rights or legitimate
interests, Complainant asserts that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain
name is not bona
fide. First, Fein
GmbH is the exclusive owner of the Trademark, FEIN, and as the exclusive owner,
Fein GmbH has not licensed Respondent
to use the Trademark. Next and notably, Respondent is selling
products, and more specifically blades, on its web site that are not FEIN
branded blades. Users visiting <feinblades.com> are presented
with lower priced non-Fein branded blades that are of unknowable quality.
Essentially, Respondent is misappropriating
the goodwill and recognition
associated with the FEIN Trademark to lure users to its site where the user
could subsequently purchase
a product from a competing manufacturer. Respondent is therefore usurping internet
traffic rightly intended for the Complainant.
See Disney Enters., Inc. v. McSherry,
FA 154589. Relevant law states that no legitimate or bona fide use or interest in the domain name can be
found when a respondent, who is selling competing goods and services, is
diverting consumers
to its own web site by using a complainant's trademark in
its domain name. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. McSherry, FA 154589, citing, N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegri Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2002) and Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9,
2000). To conclude otherwise
"would mean that a respondent could rely on intentional infringement to
demonstrate a legitimate interest,
an interpretation that is obviously contrary
to the intent of the [ICANN] Policy."
Ciccone v. Parisi, D2000-0847 (WIPO May 28, 2001).
Lastly, the evidence shows that the person and entity that are improperly using
the <feinblades.com> domain
name is one of three entities, none of which are commonly, if ever, referred to
as "feinblades." The contact
information for Respondent's <feinblades.com>
domain name indicates that users wishing to contact Respondent should direct
their inquiries to a mailing address for Market World,
Inc. Further, in a
response to Complainant’s cease and desist letter sent to Respondent,
Respondent's counsel at the time referred
to Respondent as "Mr.
Mierendorff, d/b/a Tile EZ USA, Inc."
Thus, it would appear that Respondent is most commonly known as
"Mr. Mierendorff," "Market World, Inc." or "Tile
EZ
USA."
Whatever the
commonly known name for the Respondent, Complainant asserts the evidence shows
that it is not "feinblades".
Accordingly, Complainant asserts Respondents have no legitimate rights
in the domain name pursuant to ICANN Policy 4(c)(ii).
With respect to
the element of bad faith, Complainant asserts that Policy 4(b)(iv) applies in
this case because Respondent has intentionally
attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web
site or other on-line location, by creating
a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement
of Respondent’s
web site or location, or of a product or service on
Respondent’s web site or location.
Complainant submits that the traditional factors for a likelihood
of confusion analysis weigh in the
Complainant’s favor:
·
The factor of the actual similarity of the domain name to
the Trademark weighs heavily in Complainant’s favor. The domain name <feinblades.com>
incorporates the Trademark in its entirety and merely adds to it the generic
term "blades". Adding a
generic word to a trademark renders the resultant composite confusingly similar
to the trademark.
·
With respect to the strength of Fein GmbH’s Trademark, this
factor also weighs in the Complainants' favor.
The FEIN name and trademark is the namesake of the company’s founder,
Wilhelm Emil Fein. Wilhelm Emil Fein
was developing electromedical equipment and working on supplying German cities
with electrical generating distribution
systems when, in 1895, he invented the
world’s first portable electric tool: a drill. His invention launched the power tool industry. Both Fein GmbH and Fein US have expended a
significant amount of money and resources developing the Trademark through
extensive marketing. The high quality
of FEIN branded products have caused the FEIN name to become associated by the
relevant consuming public with high
quality goods originating from Fein
GmbH. And in the United States,
wholesalers and purchasers have come to expect that Fein US is the channel
through which they can obtain
FEIN branded goods. As a result of the extensive marketing and the high quality of
FEIN branded goods, both Fein GmbH and Fein US have built up tremendous
goodwill associated with the mark FEIN.
As the only authorized distributor of FEIN branded products in the
United States, Fein US has properly used (and developed) the goodwill
and
recognition associated with the Trademark to promote its business of selling
the FEIN branded products to authorized retailers
providing links to authorized
on-line retailer on its website at the <feinus.com> domain name. The Respondent, on the contrary, has
improperly used this goodwill by merely riding on the coattails of this
successful mark – and
without investing a cent into the efforts that went into
the Trademark's success.
·
With respect to the similarity of the goods and services,
that factor also weighs in Complainant’s favor since the Respondent is using
the domain name <feinblades.com>
to sell tools and accessories, namely blades, all of which are goods and
services that Fein GmbH manufacturers (and Fein US distributes)
under the
Trademark FEIN.
·
Respondent’s business and Complainant’s business are both
marketed through similar channels. Both
Complainant and Respondent are marketing goods through the Internet, a
marketing channel that increases the likelihood that consumers
will be confused
into believing that Complainant sponsors Respondent's website at the <feinblades.com> domain name. Confusion with respect to sponsorship or affiliation with a
website is a type of confusion covered by the ICANN Policy. Consumers using the Internet who visit the <feinblades.com> domain name are
likely to be confused in to believing that the Complainant sponsors the website
at that domain name. Consumers would
also visit <feinblades.com>
expecting to discover information about Complainant, and such is not the case.
·
Respondent is selling competing products, specifically
blades, that are not FEIN branded blades and on its website at the <feinblades.com> domain name. In doing so, the Respondent is misappropriating the goodwill and
recognition associated with the FEIN Trademark to lure users to its
website
where users could subsequently purchase a product from a competing
manufacturer. Respondent is therefore
usurping internet traffic rightly intended for Complainant.
·
In conjunction with its offering of competing products for
sale on its website, the Respondent is offering for sale FEIN branded products
on its site. But these offerings are
without authorization since Fein US is the only authorized agent for Fein GmbH
in the United States. In its role as
the exclusive agent for Fein GmbH, Fein US carefully selects on-line dealers to
be dealers of FEIN products based on,
among other attributes, the on-line dealer's
knowledge of the product, ability to stock the product, customer service, and
sales
ability. Contrary to being authorized and upon information and belief,
the Respondent is obtaining FEIN branded products on the gray
market (from an
unspecified European wholesaling source), importing the goods without
authorization, and offering the goods for sale
to internet users at a lower
cost – all the while undercutting Fein US, the rightful agent of FEIN branded
products in the United
States.
·
But for Fein US’s extensive marketing efforts in the United
States and strict controls on the quality of distribution channels, the
FEIN
Trademark would have little to no effect in the minds of the consumer, and
therefore Respondent’s web site would enjoy little
to no traffic by those
consumers. However, the unfortunate
reality is that Respondent is riding on the coattails of Complainant’s success
without investing one dollar
in the efforts that went into that success.
Further,
Fein US is obligated by way of an agreement with Fein GmbH to assure that the
general appearance of the products, displays
of products, advertising, etc…
meets Fein GmbH’s standards by being homogenous and in line with the corporate
identity. Respondent’s website at the <feinblades.com> domain name does
not meet Complainant’s standards and threatens to weaken Complainant’s image
and corporate identity in the market
place.
·
The length of use of the Trademark, the goodwill associated
with the Trademark and the resources spent to build that goodwill demonstrate
that the Trademark FEIN is well known and highly regarded by the relevant
consuming public. That the Trademark
has achieved such longstanding success is the obvious reason Respondent has
chosen to incorporate the mark in its
entirety into its domain name for a web
site that sells the exact same products that the Trademark relates to. The incorporation of the total Trademark in
its domain name is likely to cause the consumer to believe that the <feinblades.com> domain name is
sponsored by Complainant. These and all
other factors mentioned above demonstrate that Respondent is acting in bad
faith, that the domain name is confusingly
similar, and that the name should
rightfully be transferred to Complainant.
B.
Respondent
Respondent submits that:
·
The disputed domain name is not identical to the name C
& E Fein GmbH & Co., and it is not confusingly similar to a trademark
or a service mark. The website states that Respondent has no relations to the C
& E Fein GmbH & Company. It does not cause
any confusion. Respondent is
not misappropriating the goodwill and recognition of the FEIN trademark.
·
Respondent alleges it created the goodwill and recognition
for a specific tool manufactured by the C & E Fein GmbH & Co. in
Germany by marketing it at Respondent’s own expense to a specific trade group since
1994.
·
Respondent’s website has a disclaimer and clearly states:
o Brand names and
trademarks are the property of their respective holders and are for descriptive
use only.
o Disclaimer:
§
We are not, in any, way related and we do not represent the
"C & E Fein GmbH& Co.KG. Of Stuttgart, Germany" and
its
subsidiaries or branches
·
The website at the <feinblades.com> domain name
does not show any registered FEIN logos or symbols.
·
The FEIN trademark is not the Name “FEIN”. It is only the
image and the logo with the word “FEIN”
·
There is no trademark for “feinblades” or any other
trademark for blades from the C & E Fein GmbH & Company.
·
The word “feinblades” is Respondent’s creation, the C &
E Fein GmbH & Company has never had the word “feinblades” in any of their publications, advertising etc.
·
The word “fein” means in German the same as the word fine in
English. Respondent is from Germany and also market blades in Germany
and other
countries.
·
The domain name “feinblades” has not been registered or used
in bad faith as outlined in Paragraph 4. This name was created during
the time
of distributorship with the C & E Fein GmbH & Co of USA.
·
Respondent has purchased from the C & E Fein GmbH &
Co in the USA only one specific electric power tool type and accessories
since 1994
as a distributor. Respondent has sold the tools to its own customers under a
self-created name: The “Dustless Grout remover”
and has advised their customers
that the electric tool was manufactured by the C & E Fein GmbH &
Company.
·
In 2002 the C & E Fein GmbH & Comp. of USA cancelled
the Distributor agreement with Respondent.
·
Respondent continues to sell accessories to its customers,
including saw blades etc. The origin or qualities of the blades sold to
Respondent’s customers are not subject to Paragraph 4 ICANN rules.
·
The C & E Fein GmbH & Co of USA is trying to
restrict free trade by refusal of sales to wholesaler like me and regulating
prices in the USA. This is an illegal and criminal act.
·
The C & E Fein GmbH & Co of USA is using the ICANN
rules to illegally defraud Respondent by trying to take over the
<feinblades.com> domain name and to take over Respondent for profit
without compensation.
·
The C & E Fein GmbH & Co of USA has conspired with a
Canadian Company to compete against Respondent. Respondent has sold the
tools
only to a specific group: The Ceramic
Tile and Stone workers and industries for over 8 years. The C & E Fein GmbH
& Co of USA is now pursuing all Respondent’s
customers in this specific
category.
None
of Respondent’s submissions are substantiated by any evidence filed in this
matter, but are rather assertions in the Response
with no evidence to establish
them. Therefore, Respondent’s assertions can be given little weight in this
proceeding.
C. Complainant’s Additional Submissions
The
domain name <feinblades.com>
incorporates the trademark FEIN in its entirety while merely adding to it the
generic term "blades". In
this connection, adding a generic word to a trademark renders the resultant
composite confusingly similar to the trademark. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. McSherry, FA 154589
(Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003), citing, Arthur Guinness Son & Co.
(Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001); see also
Sony Kubushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000). Therefore, since the domain name <feinblades.com> is an exact copy
of the trademark (with the addition of a generic term), the domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant's
Trademark.
Respondent
has not substantively responded to this contention. Respondent simply makes the bald assertion that "[its]
domain name is not identical to the name C & E Fein GmBH & Co. And it is not confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark."
Respondent's assertion that its domain name is not identical to the name
"C & E Fein GmBH & Co." is irrelevant. The asserted trademark is FEIN. Therefore, any comparisons made with respect
to Respondent’s <feinblades.com>
domain name must be made with respect to the asserted mark FEIN and not "C
& E Fein GmBH & Co". As
such, outside of its bald assertion, Respondent has not come forward with any
evidence (or argument) that its domain name is not
confusingly similar to
Complainant's trademark FEIN.
In
its Response, Respondent apparently argues that its disclaimer should counter
any confusion or inference of bad faith.
This argument is not supported by the relevant case law.
It
is well-settled law that words in many domain names can and do communicate
information as to the source or sponsor of the cite. See PACAR, Inc. v. Telescan Techs., L.L.C., [2003] USCA6 45; 319 F.3d 243, 250 (6th Cir. 2003). Using another's trademark in a domain name
is likely to cause confuse consumers as to the source and sponsorship of the
site. See id.; see also FANUC Ltd. v. Mach. Control Servs.,
FA 93677 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000).
When Internet Users initially visit a website, they may do so out of
confusion or may be confused once they are at the website. Such confusion is initial interest
confusion. Respondent's use of a
disclaimer cannot alleviate the initial interest confusion caused by its
improper use of Complainant's mark
in its domain name:
Respondent's use of a disclaimer on its website is
insufficient to avoid a finding of bad faith.
First, the disclaimer may be ignored or misunderstood by Internet
users. Second, a disclaimer does
nothing to dispel the initial interest confusion that is inevitable from
Respondent's actions. Such confusion is
a basis for finding a violation of Complainant’s rights.
Accordingly, the Complainant respectfully submits that
Respondent’s domain name <feinblades.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark FEIN.
Respondent
has indicated that the Complainant's trademark is not FEIN. Nothing could be further from the
truth. As stated in Paragraph 4(c) of
the Complaint, the Complainant is asserting its Common Law trademark rights in
the name "Fein". Complainant
has secured these rights through its use of the mark throughout the history of
the company and its expenditure of significant
amounts of money and resources
developing the Trademark through extensive marketing. As a result of the
extensive marketing and the
high quality of FEIN branded goods, the Complainant
has built up tremendous goodwill associated with the mark FEIN, and the mark
is
recognized by consumers as a source indicator of FEIN branded goods. Therefore, the term FEIN is the
Complainant's trademark by virtue of its common law rights. See
generally Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v.
Vigoro Indus., Inc., [1994] USCA3 890; 30 F.3d 466, 472 (3d Cir. 1994); See also Laurel Capital Group, Inc. v. BT
Fin. Corp., 45 F. Supp.2d 469, 481 n.11 (W.D. Pa. 1999) (quoting McCarthy
on Trademarks § 15.5)
Notably,
Respondent has not addressed Complainant’s poignant evidence of the
Respondent’s bad faith, which is that Respondent is selling
competing products,
specifically blades, that are not FEIN branded blades on its website at the <feinblades.com> domain
name. In doing so, Respondent is
misappropriating the goodwill and recognition associated with the FEIN Trademark
to lure users to its site
where users could subsequently purchase a product
from a competing manufacturer.
Respondent is therefore usurping internet traffic rightly intended for
Complainant.
Respondent is
not licensed to use the mark.
Respondent admits that it is unauthorized to distribute Fein products in
Paragraph 6 of its Response tending to further establish
that Respondent is
acting in bad faith.
As
stated in the Complaint, Fein US carefully selects on-line dealers to be
dealers of Fein products based on, among other attributes,
the on-line dealer's
knowledge of the product, ability to stock the product, customer service, and
sales ability. Contrary to being
authorized and upon information and belief,
the Respondent is obtaining FEIN branded products on the gray market (from an
unspecified
European wholesaling source), importing the goods without
authorization, and offering the goods for sale to internet users at a lower
cost – all the while undercutting Fein US, the rightful agent of FEIN branded
products in the United States. Since Respondent is
not authorized to be a
distributor or is authorized or licensed to incorporate Complainant’s trademark
in its domain name, Respondent
should be deemed to have acted in bad faith.
FINDINGS
The panel finds as follows:
1. The domain name <feinblades.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FEIN
trademark.
2. Respondent does not have rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
3. Respondent registered and is using the
disputed domain name in bad faith.
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
established that it has rights in the FEIN mark through registration of the
mark in the United States and through
widespread and continuous use of the mark
in commerce. The disputed domain name <feinblades.com>
incorporates the FEIN mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic word
“blades” to the FEIN mark, with the result that the disputed
domain name is
still confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The fact that Respondent’s
website carries a disclaimer indicating
that Respondent is not affiliated with
Complainant does not detract from the initial interest confusion created from
Respondent using
a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Complainant
therefore succeeds on the first element.
For Respondent to
rely on Policy 4(c)(i), Respondent must establish that it is using the domain
name in connection with a bona fide
offering of goods or services. In this
case, Respondent is offering goods for sale under Complainant’s FEIN mark.
Complainant is
the exclusive owner of the mark and has not licensed the mark to
Respondent. Furthermore, Respondent is using Complainant’s name
to sell
products that are not FEIN products but those of competing manufacturers. The
logical inference to be drawn from Complainant’s
evidence, which has not been
contradicted by Respondent, is that Respondent is using the FEIN mark in
conjunction with the word “blades”
to lure customers to Respondent’s website
where Respondent sells competing products. In these circumstances the Panel
agrees with
Complainant that Respondent is not engaging in a bona fide offering
of goods or services as required by the Policy.
Policy 4(c)(ii)
does not assist Respondent because there is no evidence that Respondent has
ever commonly been known by the name “feinblades”.
Policy 4(c)(iii)
does not assist Respondent either as Respondent’s use of the disputed domain
name is clearly for commercial purposes.
Complainant,
therefore, succeeds on the second element.
While Policy 4(b) contains several instances
where the Panel is directed to find bad faith, Complainant replies only on
Policy 4(b)(iv)
and asserts that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users
to Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating
a likelihood of
confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s
web site or location, or of a
product or service on Respondent’s web site or location.
The evidence before
the Panel, which has not been contradicted, is that Complainant owns a
well-known mark that is being used by Respondent
to attract Internet users to
Respondent’s website for the purpose of then luring those users to purchase
products found on Respondent’s
website. The products on that website are
similar in nature to the products sold by Complainant under the FEIN mark and
Respondent
even purports to sell Complainant’s products, although not
authorized to do so. Respondent is well aware of Complainant’s business
and
Complainant’s mark because Respondent admittedly was at one time authorized to
sell Complainant’s products. The only logical
inference to be drawn from all
the evidence is that Respondent is using Complainant’s mark to create a
likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website and the products sold on
that
web site. That being the case, Respondent has registered and is using the
disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of
the policy.
Complainant therefore
succeeds on the third element as well.
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <feinblades.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Anne M.
Wallace, Q.C., Panelist
Dated: October 1, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/945.html