DECISION

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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

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 (9^th 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.”

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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").

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/960.html