 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service >> B & Q Plc v Ovchinnikova [2007] DRS 4478 (23 April 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2007/4478.html Cite as: [2007] DRS 4478 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Complainant: B&Q Plc
GB
Respondent: Ms O Ovchinnikova
LV
bandq.co.uk ("the Domain Name").
3.1. A hard copy of the Complaint was received in full by Nominet on 20 February 2007. Nominet validated the Complaint and notified the Respondent of the Complaint.
3.2. A hard copy of the Response was received on 15 March 2007. Nominet forwarded the Response to the Complainant on the same date. A Reply was entered into the system and hardcopies were received on 21 March 2007.
3.3. Mediation was not successful and so on 5 April 2007 the Complainant paid the fee to obtain the Expert Decision pursuant to paragraph 21 of the procedure for the conduct of proceedings under the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service ("the Procedure").
3.4. On 10 April 2007, Nick Phillips, the undersigned ("the Expert"), confirmed to Nominet that he knew of no reason why he could not properly accept the invitation to act as the Expert in this case and further confirmed that he knew of no matters which ought to be drawn to the attention of the parties, which might appear to call into question his independence and/or impartiality.
4.1 There are no outstanding formal or procedural issues.
5.1 The Complainant B&Q Plc (company number 00973387) was incorporated in 1970 and operates a well known retail business under the name "B&Q" selling do it yourself products and materials and providing installation services. The Complainant's retail network comprises over 340 stores with over 38,000 employees. It is currently the largest DIY retailer in the UK and the third largest DIY retailer in the world with an annual turnover that has consistently reached over £1 billion since 1998 to 1999.
5.2 The Respondent is an individual whose name is Ms O Ovchinnikova.
5.3 The Complainant owns a number of UK and European community trade marks for its B&Q name, in relation to various goods and services including UK trade marks 1327953, 2280701, 2287028, 2295539, 232287 for the word mark B&Q, and Community Trade Marks 001037324, 000870907, 001993450 also for the word mark B&Q. The Complainant also owns a number of domain name registrations including (but not limited to) the following:
bandq.bus
bandq.com
bandq.info
bandq.net
bandq.org
bandq.plc.uk
bandq.com.sg
bandq.com.tw
bandq.com.vn
5.4 The Domain Name was registered by the Complainant on 22 February 1999 in the name of B&Q plc. The Domain Name was being used to re-direct users to its website at www.diy.com. Due to an oversight by the Complainant's agent, the Domain Name was not renewed and was acquired by the Respondent on 18 September 2006.
5.5 The Domain Name is currently being pointed towards a webpage which is headed up bandq.co.uk and displays a picture of five musicians with the heading "This is the Home Page of the Band Q New Age Folk Band". For various periods since the Respondent acquired the Domain Name it has also been used to link to various pages consisting of sponsored links including links to a number of the Complainant's competitors.
5.6 The "&" character cannot form part of a domain name.
The parties' contentions can be summarised as follows:
Complainant
6.1 In its Complaint, the Complainant makes the following submissions:
6.1.1 The Complainant has Rights in a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name because:
(a) The Complainant has used the B&Q name on its advertising and promotional material and its product packaging as well as investing heavily in promoting goods and services under the brand.
(b) Since 1998-99 the Complainant has spent tens of millions of pounds a year on advertising and promoting its business. Such investment in the brand has resulted in very substantial reputation and goodwill under and by reference to the B&Q name which is now a household name
(c) The B&Q name is distinctive of the Complainant and its goods and services and consumers expect goods and services provided under and by reference to the B&Q name to be those of the Complainant
(d) The Complainant already owns a number of domain names registered for its B&Q name as listed above
(e) The "&" character cannot form part of a domain name hence the equivalent representation "and". The Domain Name is therefore identical to the Complainant's B&Q name
(f) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's B&Q Trade Marks as it incorporates the letters "B" and "Q" which the Complainant submits are the dominant and distinctive elements of the mark as well as incorporating the word "and" to represent the "&" character element of the mark
6.1.2 The Registration is an Abusive Registration under a number of provisions of the Policy as follows;
(a) Paragraph 3(a)(i)(B)
The Domain Name was registered or otherwise acquired as a blocking registration against a name or mark in which the Complainant has rights.
For the reasons stated above the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's B&Q name and trade mark. The Domain Name was a name that was previously registered and used by the Complainant. It was therefore a name which it regarded as being important to its brand protection policy. The Complainant also owns other top level domains and country code top level domains with the same second level domain as the Domain Name. The registration by the Respondent of a name which she does not have rights has effectively blocked the Complainant from registering and using a name in which it has rights.
(b) Paragraph 3 (a)(i)(C)
The Domain Name was registered or otherwise acquired primarily for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the Complainant's business.
The Respondent is using the fame of the B&Q name as represented in the Domain Name to attract and capture as much traffic as possible seeking the Complainant's goods and services. As a result, the Respondent has obtained a business opportunity. It is likely that customers genuinely seeking the Complainant's business who reasonably assume it might be found on a site at the Domain Name, will be diverted to the Respondent's site. It does not matter that once at the site customers may become aware of what has happened. The redirection may have resulted in lost customers to the Complainant. The Complainant does not know the extent of such loss.
(c) Paragraph 3(a)(ii)
The Domain Name has been used by the Respondent in a manner which takes unfair advantage of or is unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's rights. The redirection of the Domain Name to the Respondent's web site is an appropriation of the goodwill associated with the B&Q Trade Marks. Further, the Respondent's use is likely to confuse people into thinking that the Domain Name is registered to, operated or authorised by or otherwise connected with the Complainant. Consumers will, contrary to what is in fact the case, expect the website hosted at the Domain Name to be that of the Complainant because the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks and because the Domain Name was previously registered and used by the Complainant in relation to its B&Q business for a substantial period.
The Complainant refers the Expert to WIPO Case No. D2001-1341 (Autosales Incorporated v Don Terrill) decided under the WIPO UDRP jurisdiction which is at Appendix 10.
Use of a registered trade mark to divert traffic to a competitor's site is a well recognised phenomenon which will ordinarily deprive a respondent of any right or legitimate interest in the domain name in issue. The Complainant relies on the numerous decisions under the Nominet procedure where such use has been held to constitute an Abusive Registration.
(d) Paragraphs 4(a)(i)(A)and (B)
The Complainant contends that commercial use of the Domain Name which the Respondent has no legitimate rights and is so inherently likely to lead to confusion of Internet users cannot constitute a genuine offering of goods or services. The Respondent's initial and current use of the Domain Name to host a website with sponsored links to third party websites including websites of the Complainant's competitors cannot be considered genuine use.
The Complainant further submits that the depiction of the 'BandQ' folk band with the statement "This is the homepage of Band Q" folk band" displayed at the web site on 8 December 2006 was clearly an attempt to legitimise the use of the Domain Name following an approach from the Complainant's enquiry agent particularly since the band does not exist. The website also stated that the website was currently under development. However, by January 2007, the web site was back to hosting sponsored links to third party websites. Clearly, such a website cannot possible be a genuine home page of a band.
The above use does not constitute evidence that the Respondent is known (let alone commonly known) by the Domain Name.
The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant or any of its subsidiary or associated companies to use any of the B&Q Trade Marks or any name or names confusingly similar thereto.
To the best of the Complainant's belief the Respondent has no trade mark or service mark rights (registered or unregistered) in respect of the Domain Name or any corresponding name.
(e) Paragraph 4(a) (i)(C)
The Complainant submits that the use of the Domain Name cannot constitute a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name. At the time of the Respondent's registration, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the B&Q Trade Marks.
The Complainant relies on the following:-
(i) The B&Q name is a very well known trade mark distinctive of and exclusively referable to the Complainant;
(ii) The Respondent is well aware of the Complainant's business and its trade marks as is clear from the links now displayed on the Respondent's web site, such links offering goods and services in direct competition with those provided by the Complainant.
The Respondent has acquired the Domain Name thus appropriating the goodwill in the B&Q Trade Marks with a view to luring Internet users seeking the Complainant's goods and services to the site to generate pay per click revenue, a clear commercial activity which involves unfair use of the Complainant's trade marks.
THE RESPONSE
Respondent
6.2 In its Response, the Respondent makes the following submissions:
6.2.1 They are a Latvian band playing new age folk music. Most of the band members now reside in the UK and they are planning to perform regular concerts here.
6.2.2 The band was known in Latvia as "Q Grupa" but they have now changed this to "Band Q". They wished to translate directly to Q Band but there was already a band called Q Band (Q or Q The Band) in London and they refer to their website of www.qtheband.com.
6.2.3 There are already bands called Q and they were aware of Q Magazine, a famous music magazine in the UK. It is possible to find a number of bands already called "Q" by searching on Google.
6.2.4 Their website is not yet complete which is why it does not currently appear when searching under Google.
6.2.5 The Respondent has a genuine interest in the Domain Name and no intention to sell it. The temporary display of unrelated content was due to organisation and hosting problems.
6.2.6 The Respondent is not excited about being associated with B&Q and DIY as it does not provide them with any benefits. The Respondent has now placed a link on the site for visitors looking for B&Q in order to direct them away if an error has been made.
THE COMPLAINANT'S REPLY
Complainant
6.3 In its Reply the Complainant makes the following submissions.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent's claim to be a "Latvian new age folk band" is false. The Respondent has produced no evidence to support her claim or indicated where such evidence can be found.
The Respondent now describes 'the band' as a "new age folk band". The Complainant has carried out a further internet search of the term "new age folk band" and attaches the results at Annex A. As at 19 March 2007, there are 13 results, none of which refer to the Respondent.
The Complainant submits that 'the Band Q' is fictitious and the Respondent's assertions are wholly false for the following reasons:
1. The Respondent has provided no evidence that a band under the name 'Band Q' actually exists. In particular the Respondent has not:
(i) given any details of the history of the band or when it was formed;
(ii) identified the band members by name or said how many members the band comprises;
(iii) identified any songs the band have written or performed;
(iv) provided any dates or locations where the band have performed; and
(v) given details of any published records by the band.
2. The Respondent suggests that "most of" the band members now reside in the UK and that the band is planning to do concerts in the UK on a regular basis but gives no details nor says how and when this will occur, particularly with other band members still being in Latvia.
3. The only available picture of 'the band', which is again now displayed at the web site hosted at Domain Name, appears to be of five men, yet the Respondent's name suggests the Respondent is female and there is no explanation of any connection between the Respondent and 'the band' depicted at the web site hosted at the Domain Name.
4. The mere fact that the web site hosted at the Domain Name "is incomplete" does not mean that entries for the band would not be found in search engines per se. Any web content about the band, including song or concert reviews, articles by or about the band or band members or by third parties about the band could potentially appear on any search engine results.
Furthermore, the Respondent claims that the band was known in Latvia as "QGrupa" yet submits no evidence to support the claim. The Complainant has conducted an internet search of the term Q Grupa, the first 10 results of which are at Annex B. Again, the results make no reference to any new age folk band by that name. In any event, a band previously called "QGrupa", cannot claim rights in the name 'BandQ' which is visually and aurally dissimilar and where no conceptual similarity exists without knowledge of the meaning of the non-English word 'grupa'.
Sponsored links
The Respondent claims that the unrelated web content found at the site resulted from organisation and hosting problems but gives no further explanation. This is not credible without further details, particularly in light of the fact that the Respondent appears to have had no problems modifying the content in the past and recently to add a link to the Complainant's own site.
The Respondent claims not to be "excited about B&Q/diy.com association" and not to obtain any benefit from the association with the Complainant. However, this is contradicted by the existence of the sponsored links to third parties web sites in relation to DIY activities and in direct competition with the Complainant which generated click through revenue that were previously hosted at the Domain Name. Moreover, competitors' sponsored links hosted at web sites whose addresses comprise the brand names or variations of brand names of third parties, is well established and has been the subject of numerous successful Complaints under the Nominet and other DRS procedures. The Respondent provides no evidence that the sponsored links hosted at the Domain Name did not generate click through revenue contrary to the way such links ordinarily function.
The confusion and association with the Complainant's business created by the Respondent's use of the Domain name is reinforced by the addition of a link on the site at the Domain Name to the Complainant's site. In adding the link, the Respondent recognises that at least some visitors looking for the Complainant will end up at the site and demonstrates the Respondent's awareness that such misappropriation of goodwill in the B&Q name is for its own ends, whether to generate click through revenue or otherwise.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has given no details which can be verified whatsoever in relation to its claims. Moreover the Respondent has given no evidence that she will not in future revert to the previous use of the Domain Name to host sponsored links of third parties in competition with the Complainant's business.
General
7.1 Under paragraph 2 of the Dispute Resolution Service Policy ("the Policy") the Complainant is required to show, on the balance of probabilities, that;
(1) it has rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name; and
(2) the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration.
Complainant's Rights
7.2 The first question I must answer is therefore whether the Complainant has proved on the balance of probabilities that it owns Rights in the name or mark that is identical or similar to the Domain Name.
7.3 The Policy defines rights as including but not limited to "…rights enforceable under English laws." This has always been treated in decisions under Nominet DRS as a test with a low threshold to overcome and I think that that must be the correct approach.
7.4 The Complainant has provided extensive evidence of its use of the B&Q brand with a business incorporated in 1970 under the name B&Q selling do it yourself products and materials and providing installation services. Additionally, the Complainant is the proprietor of a number of registered trade marks in the word mark B&Q.
7.5 The Complainant has also registered and used the domain names bandq.bus, bandq.com, bandq.info, badq.net, bandq.org, bandq.plc.uk, bandq.com.sg, bandq.com.tw and bandq.com.vn. The Complainant explains (and I accept) that the "&" character cannot form part of a domain name, hence the equivalent representation "and" has been used by the Complainant.
7.6 In the circumstances I have no difficulty in finding that the Complainant has Rights in the name B&Q, by virtue of its registered trade marks and its substantial use. I also think that on the balance of probabilities, it has rights in the name bandq specifically in relation to domain names and internet services because of its use of the domain names bandq.bus, bandq.com, bandq.info, bandq.net, bandq.org, bandq.plc.uk, bandq.com.sg, bandq.com.tw and bandq.com.vn and its previous registration of the name bandq.co.uk.
7.7 Ignoring the first and second level suffixes, as I must do, I must now decide whether the names in which the Complainant has rights i.e. B&Q and bandq are identical or similar to the Domain Name i.e. bandq.
7.8 Taking first the name B&Q, the Respondent's use differs only in that the word "and" is written as opposed to using the character "&". As the Complainant has explained the character "&" cannot be used to form part of a domain name so it would be impossible for either party to have a domain name of "b&q" or "B&Q" (using lower case letters as opposed to capital letters makes no significant difference as websites like email addresses are not case sensitive). In my view there is clearly no overall change to the character of the name as conceptually and linguistically the "&" character and the word "and" or "AND" are the same and would be viewed as such by the general public. The character "&" is frequently written as the word "and" and vice-versa in any event. I therefore find that, on the balance of probabilities, the mark bandq as used in the Domain Name is identical or similar to the mark B&Q.
7.9 In addition (or in the alternative) the mark bandq which I have also found that the Complainant has Rights in is clearly identical to the Domain Name.
Abusive Registration
7.10 Having concluded that the Complainant has Rights in a name which is identical or similar to the Domain Name, I must consider whether the Domain Name constitutes an Abusive Registration. Abusive Registration is defined in the Policy as
"… a domain name which either
(a) was registered or otherwise acquired in the manner which, at the time when the registration or acquisition took place took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights; OR
(b) has been used in a manner which took unfair advantage of, was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights."
This definition allows me to consider whether the Domain Name constitutes an Abusive Registration at any time and not, for example, just the time of registration/acquisition.
7.11 Paragraph 3 of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of the factors which may evidence that a domain name is an Abusive Registration. It is worthwhile setting out paragraph 3 of the Policy in full:
"3. Evidence of Abusive Registration
a. A non-exhaustive list of factors which may be evidence that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration is as follows:
i. Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or otherwise acquired the Domain Name primarily:
A for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Domain Name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with acquiring or using the Domain Name;
B as a blocking registration against a name or mark in which the Complainant has Rights; or
C for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the business of the Complainant;
ii. Circumstances indicating that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in a way which has confused people or businesses into believing that the Domain Name is registered to, operated or authorised by, or otherwise connected with the Complainant;
iii. The Complainant can demonstrate that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registrations where the Respondent is the registrant of domain names (under .uk or otherwise) which correspond to well known names or trade marks in which the Respondent has no apparent rights, and the Domain Name is part of that pattern;
iv. It is independently verified that the Respondent has given false contact details to us; or
v. The domain name was registered as a result of a relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, and the Complainant:
A has been using the domain name registration exclusively; and
B paid for the registration and / or renewal of the domain name registration.
b. Failure on the Respondent's part to use the Domain Name for the purposes of e-mail or a website is not in itself evidence that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration.
c. There shall be a presumption of Abusive Registration if the complainant proves that Respondent has been found to have made an Abusive Registration in three (3) or more Dispute Resolution Service cases in the two (2) years before the complaint was filed. This presumption can be rebutted."
7.12 The Complainant in its submissions expressly relies on paragraphs 3(a)(i)(B), 3(a)(i)(C) and 3(a)(ii).
7.13 Paragraph 3a of the Policy is a list of non-exhaustive factors which may be evidence that the Domain Names are an Abusive Registration. It is however also relevant to consider in broader terms whether the Domain Names constitute Abusive Registrations within the definition set out in the Policy (see paragraph 7.10 above).
7.14 In doing this, I have adopted the reasoning of the Appeal Panel in the case of Thomas Cook UK Limited v. WhitleyBayUncovered (DRS00583). The relevant part of that decision is produced below.
"It seems to the Panel that, given the extent and renown of the Complainant's trade mark, it is stretching credulity beyond breaking point to suggest that the Respondent did not know of the trade mark in question when it sought registration of the Domain Names. Indeed, it is perhaps instructive that there is no suggestion in the communications from the Respondent that it was in fact, unaware of the reputation of the Complainant's trade mark CLUB18-30. Although the Respondent is careful to suggest that the Complainant's proposed use of the Domain Names is open to question (referring to "our concept of the uncovered names") there is no suggestion that the club18-30 part of the Domain Names was chosen by it for any other reason than it was the Complainant's trade mark.
The Panel, therefore, finds that upon the balance of probabilities the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trade mark at the time of registration of the Domain Names, and consciously chose to use that trade mark."
7.15 As in the Whitley Bay case, it seems to me that the mark, "B&Q" is so well known that, (subject to what the Respondent says in her Response which I will deal with later) it is almost inconceivable that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant's trade marks and Rights generally when it sought registration of the Domain Name. Further, the only possible reason for the Respondent registering the Domain Name could be to take advantage of the substantial goodwill and reputation in the mark, "B&Q". Indeed this is supported by the Respondent's initial use of the Domain Name pointing to a holding page containing sponsored links to a number of other businesses, including competitors of the Complainant. It follows from this, that on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent must have intended to gain an advantage of some kind by using the Domain Name in such a way and it must follow that this advantage was, "unfair".
7.16 The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case of Abusive Registration and on that basis I will not, at this stage, go on to consider the detailed points which the Complainant makes.
7.17 This is not of course the end of the story. Having found that the Complainant has, on the balance of probabilities established a prima facie case of Abusive Registration it is now open to the Respondent to rebut this finding by, for example, establishing any of the non-exhaustive factors found under paragraph 4.
7.18 The relevant sub-sections of paragraph 4 are 4 (a)(i)(A) (B) and (C). These are set out below.
a) "A non-exhaustive list of factors which may be evidence that the Domain Name is not an Abusive Registration is as follows:
i) Before being aware of the Complainant's cause for complaint (not necessarily the 'complaint' under the DRS), the Respondent has
A) used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name or a domain name which is similar to the Domain Name in connection with a genuine offering of goods and services;
B) been commonly known by the name or legitimately connected with a mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name.
C) made legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name; or…"
7.19 I will address each of these provisions separately below but in essence I think that what this boils down to is whether, on the balance of probabilities, I believe what the Respondent says in her Response and particularly whether I believe that the Domain Name is intended to be used for the website of a Latvian band which has moved to the UK or is in the process of moving to the UK and which for various reasons has changed its name to "Band Q". The Complainant, largely in its Reply has set out a number of reasons why I should not believe what the Respondent says and why what the Respondent says is evidentially flawed in considering the Response. I am however mindful that Nominet's DRS is intended as a relatively informal dispute resolution process and for this reason I think that it would be wrong of me to expect the same standard of evidence that would be expected, for example, in court proceedings.
Paragraph 4(a)(i)B
7.20 The only demonstrable preparations which the Respondent has made to use the Domain Name is the recent addition of a holding page which contains a picture of a number of men playing in a band and the text, "This is the Home Page of the Band Q New Age Folk Band." Against this, there is no evidence that Band Q exists which would presumably have been easy to provide and indeed an internet search does not provide any evidence that this band exists. The Respondent says that the band was previously called Q Grupa but for various reasons has changed its name since its relocation from Latvia to the UK. However, again no evidence of this has been given and again this really should have been possible to produce. Therefore, and notwithstanding the fact that I would not expect the Respondent to produce evidence to the kind of standard that one would expect to see in court proceedings, I am not willing to find that, on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in relation to its band simply on the basis of the Respondent's Response (which consists of a number of assertions which are wholly unsupported by evidence) and on the basis of the Respondent's holding page which appears to have been hastily erected to defeat any claim that the Complaint may have had.
Paragraph 4(a)(i)B
7.21 For similar reasoning as I have set out above I have great difficulty in finding that the Respondent has been commonly known by the name Band Q or that she has legitimately been connected with this name or something similar to it. There is simply nothing in the Response for me to base such a finding on and, as I have said above, if the Respondent had genuinely been known as Band Q (or even Q Grupa) or if she had been associated with such a band then presumably it would have been a simple matter to provide some evidence of this and indeed this evidence may well have been readily available on the internet.
Paragraph 4(a)(i)C
7.22 As an alternative to paragraph 4(a)(i)A and B it may be argued that the Respondent was in fact making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name. For example, if the Respondent really is connected with a band called Band Q which is run on a non-commercial basis (as I appreciate many bands of this nature are) then it is very arguable indeed that this provision applies. However, once again, there is a distinct lack of evidence. The Respondent says that Band Q plans to hold concerts in the future in the UK but no evidence of these plans has been provided and no evidence of the band's previous concerts, either in the UK or elsewhere, and either under the name Band Q or any previous name, has been provided. As with the previous two sections of paragraph 4(a)(i) I am unable to find that, on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent has established that its use of the Domain Name is not an Abusive Registration.
Conclusion
7.23 I am very much left under the impression that the Respondent has made a fairly inventive attempt to try to defeat the Complainant's case by the erection of its current holding page referring to Band Q. The complete lack of supporting evidence offered by the Respondent to back up her contention that she is in some way connected with Band Q does however lead me to the conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities, Band Q probably does not exist and therefore that the Domain Name is, the hands of the Respondent, an Abusive Registration.
7.24 The Respondent has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Domain Name is not an Abusive Registration.
For the reasons set out above, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that the Complainant has Rights in a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration. I therefore direct that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
NICK PHILLIPS
23 April 2007