Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service

 


Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service

DRS Number 02801

Parties The Emigration Group Limited v Sanwar Ali

Decision of Independent Expert

1. Parties

Complainant: The Emigration Group Limited

Country: GB

Respondent: Sanwar Ali

Country: GB

2. Domain Name

emigrationgroup.co.uk

theemigrationgroup.co.uk

These domain names are referred to below as the "Domain Names".

3. Procedural Background

The Complaint was lodged with Nominet on 15 July 2005. Nominet validated the Complaint and notified the Respondent of the Complaint on the same date. The Respondent filed a Response in time on 5 August 2005.Nominet informed the Complainant and notified it that it had until 15 August 2005 in which to file a Reply should it choose to do so. A Reply was duly filed in time on 15 August 2005. On 19 August 2005 the Dispute entered the informal mediation stage. On 16 September 2005 Nominet informed the Complainant that it had not been possible to achieve a resolution to the Complaint by informal mediation. On 3 October 2005 the Complainant paid Nominet the appropriate fee for a decision of an Expert pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service Policy ("the Policy").

Sallie Spilsbury, the undersigned ("the Expert") has confirmed to Nominet that she knew of no reason why she could not properly accept the invitation to act as Expert in this case and further confirmed that she knew of no matters which ought to be drawn to the attention of the Parties which might appear to call into question her independence and impartiality.

On 17 October 2005 pursuant to clause 13 of the Dispute Resolution Procedure (The Procedure) the Expert invited further statements from the Parties on developments which had occurred in relation to the use of the Domain Names subsequent to the filing of the Complaint (these are detailed below in section 5 of this Decision). Further particulars were filed by the Complainant on 19 October 2005 and by the Respondent on 24 October 2005. In each case this was within the timeframe set by the Expert.

4. Outstanding Formal/Procedural Issues (if any)

There are no outstanding procedural issues.

5. The Facts

The Complainant was incorporated on 2 August 1995. Since 1995 it has provided an emigration service trading under the name "The Emigration Group". The Complainant asserts that it is often perceived by the market as "Emigration Group" as well as "The Emigration Group". In addition to its trading name, it has also used a logo since 1995. Examples of the logo have been exhibited to the Complaint. The logo consists of the words The Emigration Group- in stylized form; the word "Emigration" being more prominently displayed than the other 2 words.

The Complainant has exhibited evidence of the services it provides in the form of press articles published in the UK and letters from satisfied clients. The exhibits refer to the Complainant's activities over the period 1995-2003.

The Complainant has advertised in print using the name "The Emigration Group" since 1995. In the Complaint it states that since 1995 it has spent approximately £100,000 per annum on print advertising. This statement is supported by signed letters from a publisher and a printer confirming both the length of the advertising and its regularity. Copies of advertisements and printed testimonials extracted from books published in the UK are exhibited to the Complaint. The Complainant has also advertised online since 1995 and since incorporation it states that it has spent approximately £5,000 per annum on online advertising. It exhibits examples of linking advertisements on the website www.21stcenturynurse.com. as evidence of its online marketing activity.

The Complainant operates what it describes as its "principal" website at www.jobfasttrack.co.nz which is the gateway for the Complainant and an associated business. The Complainant states that this website can also be reached at www.emigration.uk.com. The Complaint records that a "Google" search against "The Emigration Group" gives the highest placed result as the www.jobfastrack,co.nz site. A search carried out by the Expert on 14 October 2005 confirmed this claim.

The Complaint states that the Respondent is a director of a limited company named Workpermit.com Limited which was incorporated on 18 January 2005 and which provides similar services to the Complainant. The Respondent does not dispute this statement but the Response records that the Respondent was originally established in 1988 (the medium through which it then operated is not explained) and that it has been offering emigration services for longer than the Complainant. The Response points out that Workpermit.com Limited provides services for a wider range of countries than the Complainant. It operates a website at www.workpermit.com. The Respondent describes this as "one of the top websites in the world with about 10,000 visitors a day".

The Respondent registered the Domain Names on 16 October 2002. The Complaint states that at 12 July 2005 the Domain Names were not pointing to any site or resource specified by the Respondent. This is confirmed by a printout provided to the Expert by Nominet as of 15 July 2005. However on 14 October 2005 the Expert found that the Domain Names appeared to be in use by the Respondent. Websites were operating at www.theemigrationgroup.co.uk and www.emigrationgroup.co.uk (the Domain Name Websites). The Expert invited the Complainant to make a further statement confined to this issue. The Respondent was given an opportunity to respond to any additional statement filed by the Complainant limited to the submissions (if any) in the Complainant's additional submission. Both Parties filed additional statements.

The Respondent admits that it is responsible for the Domain Name Websites each of which is headed "Workpermit.com Emigration Group Services". The Domain Name Websites feature "EmigrationGroup.co.uk part of Workpermit.com" in prominent lettering. The homepage of the Domain Name Websites have links to the Respondent's website at www.workpermit.com. A disclaimer is placed at the bottom of the homepage of each Domain Name Website stating "This website has no connection with The Emigration Group, who can be contacted at www.emigration.uk.com". There is also a link to the Complainant's website on the homepage of each Domain Name Website.

The date on which the Domain Name Websites became active is unclear. In its additional statement the Complainant suggests that the relevant date was 22 August 2005 and puts the Respondent to proof on this issue. The Respondent states in its additional submission that the date is "irrelevant". However the Respondent provides statistics for the number of hits for the Domain Name Websites. These date from August 2005. Whilst the Expert is unable to determine the exact date from the evidence available it is clear that the Domain Name Websites were not active on 15 July 2005 and that the Respondent's use of the Domain Names postdates the filing of the Complaint in this matter.

6. The Parties' Contentions

Complainant

The Complainant asserts that it has Rights in the Domain Names relying on its registration of the corporate name The Emigration Group Limited at Companies House in August 1995 and the length and extent of use of The Emigration Group and Emigration Group in relation to the provision of emigration services as recorded at section 5 of this Decision.

The Complainant asserts that the Domain Names are Abusive Registrations under the Policy. It relies on the following matters to support this assertion (the quoted statements in this part of the Decision are quotations from the Complaint):

(a) The Domain Names were primarily registered for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Domain Names to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant for a price greater than the Respondent's costs. In support of this contention the Complainant relies on a conversation with the Respondent dated 20 May 2005 in which the Respondent allegedly stated that "he could and would charge whatever sum he saw fit for the transfer of the Domain Names".

(b) The Domain Names were primarily registered to stop the Complainant registering them. In support of this the Complainant relies on the conversation of 20 May 2005 referred to above in which the Respondent allegedly stated that he "has registered a large number of Domain Names and that he could not recall all of the Domain Names which he has registered".

(c) The Domain Names were primarily registered to unfairly disrupt the Complainant's business because the Respondent's use of the Domain Names will confuse potential clients of the Complainant. It is averred that potential clients of the Complainant who are familiar with using the Internet may guess that the Complainant's website could be reached at the Domain Names and as such may wrongly assume that the Complainant does not have a website (this statement was made in the Complaint document before the Respondent had begun to use the Domain Names.)

(d) The Domain Names were primarily registered as blocking registrations because at the time of the Complaint the Respondent was making no commercial use of them (this statement was made in the Complaint document before the Respondent had begun to use the Domain Names.)

(e) The Domain Names are part of a series of registrations and the Respondent is in the habit of making registrations of Domain Names in which the Respondent has no apparent interest. In support of this contention the Complainant relies on the conversation of the Respondent on 20 May 2005 referred to above.

In its additional statement filed after the Respondent had begun to use the Domain Names the Complainant makes the following additional contentions:

(f) It appears that the Respondent has set up a company, form or other trading entity trading under "the emigrationgroup.com" and "emigrationgroup.co.uk". The links on the Respondent's website to its own workpermit.com website suggest that the websites operated under the Domain Names are merely a sham which serves as a redirect to the Respondent's site. The disclaimer at the bottom of the homepage of the sites does not in any way reduce the impact of the Respondent's abusive registration.

Respondent

The Respondent denies that the Domain Names are Abusive Registrations under the Policy. In support of its position it states the following (the quoted statements in this part of the Decision are quotations from the Response):

(a) The Respondent has been in business for longer than the Complainant having been originally established in 1988

(b) "The Emigration Group" is not a Domain Name that anyone should have automatic rights to. Although the Respondent does not elaborate on this point in the Response (other than to state "it is like saying that if you have "immigration" in your name than you must have the right to the domain name www.immigration.com.) The Expert understands this as a reference to the alleged descriptive nature of the Domain Names. Indeed the Respondent states that it would not be possible to "servicemark" The Emigration Group" as no one should have the exclusive right to use the precise combination of words.

(c) The Respondent offers immigration services for a wider range of countries than the Complainant and has an "Emigration Group" to deal with immigration services to a number of different countries.

(d) The Respondent's workpermit.com website has about 10,000 visitors per day. If the Domain Names remain with the Respondent it is "far more likely to provide content rich information to web-site visitors"

(e) The length of time that has elapsed since the registration of the Domain Names in 2002 and the making of the Complaint suggest that the Complainant is not in such great need of the Domain Names.

(f) The Complainant does not primarily market itself via the Internet (unlike the Respondent) and does not actually need the Domain Names as much as the Respondent.

In its additional statement filed after the Respondent had begun to use the Domain Names the Respondent makes the following additional contentions in reply to the Complainant's additional statement (where submissions have been duplicated they are not specifically referred to in this section having been already set out above):

(g) Since the Domain Name Websites were put up by the Respondent, the Respondent had received approximately 80 visitors in total many of whom were employees of the Respondent. The Respondent's wrokpermit.com site received approximately 300,000 visitors per month. The Domain Names are clearly not important Domain Names for the Complainant. Very few people visit the sites expecting to be able to contact the Complainant. The Respondent supports this assertion with a print out of the number of hits the sites received for the period August-October 2005. This annex is not clear to the Expert. However the Expert is willing to determine the Complaint on the basis of the figures which the Respondent puts forward in the main body of its additional statement.

(h) The Respondent's behaviour demonstrates that it has behaved entirely properly. Like any other immigration firm it should have the right to use the Domain Names and if it puts up a website then the Respondent is going to use the site to market its own services. At the same time the Respondent points to the disclaimer which it has placed on the Domain Name Websites. In addition the Respondent asserts that it has included a link to the Complainant's site.

(i) It would be unfair and unjust to transfer the Domain Names to the Complainant. The Respondent has a legitimate use for the Domain Names. There is no reason why the Complainant should have more right to the Domain Names than the Respondent.

(j) If the Respondent keeps the Domain Names it is far more likely that the Internet community will benefit. The Respondent has one of the top immigration-related sites in the world and provides a great deal of valuable information to the Internet community free of charge. The Complainant uses its website primarily for sales and marketing and does not provide very much free information.

In its Reply the Complainant disputes the relevance to the Policy of a number of the submissions which the Respondent makes in its Response.

7. Discussion and Findings:

General

Clause 2a of the Policy provides that a Respondent must submit to proceedings under the Dispute Resolution Service if a Complainant asserts according to the Procedure, that:

i the Complainant has Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name; and

ii the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration.

The Complainant is required to prove to the Expert that both elements are present on the balance of probabilities (clause 2b of the Policy).

Complainant's Rights

Rights are defined in clause 1 of the Policy as including but not limited to "rights enforceable under English law. However a Complainant will be unable to rely on rights in a name or term which is wholly descriptive of the Complainant's business".

The Emigration Group

The Complainant has exhibited evidence of the services it provides under the name The Emigration Group in the form of advertisements, press articles published in the UK and letters from satisfied clients. The exhibits confirm the Complainant's trading activities over the period 1995-2003.The Complaint records that the Complainant's annual print advertising spend per annum is approximately £100,000 which the Expert notes is a substantial amount of money suggestive of a significant advertising presence. The exhibits satisfy the Expert that the Complainant has made substantial use of the name The Emigration Group since 1995 in connection with the provision of emigration services. Some of this use relates to the Complainant's logo. However the testimonials from satisfied customers together with references in the press articles to comments from the Complainant in connection with emigration confirm that the Complainant's use of the "The Emigration Group" mark in connection with its services has given rise to a substantial trading reputation and protectable goodwill independently of its logo.

Emigration Group

The Complaint assets that the Complainant is often perceived in the market as "Emigration Group" although there is no direct evidence to corroborate this statement the Expert notes that a number of the press articles exhibited to the Complaint and one of the testimonials refer to the Complainant as "the Emigration Group" which suggests that the prefix "the" is viewed as of less significance than the following two words. On the balance of probabilities the Expert also finds that the name "Emigration Group" has given rise to a substantial trading reputation and protectable goodwill for the Complainant.

It follows from the above that the Expert does not agree with the Respondent's submission that "The Emigration Group" or "Emigration Group" are purely descriptive of the provision of emigration services in the hands of the Complainant such that they are available terms for any trader to use. It is possible for descriptive terms to become distinctive as a result of the commercial use made of them by a particular trader. In the view of the Expert this is what has occurred on the facts. The addition of the word "Group" to "Emigration" is not a phrase that would be used in everyday speech. It has the potential to be distinctive of a particular trader who invests time and expense in marketing the term for their services and the Expert finds that it has in fact become distinctive of the Complainant as a result of the use made of it. When this occurs a trader is able to protect the goodwill generated by its trading name and to this extent it has Rights for the purposes of the Policy. If the Complainant were suggesting that it has rights in the word "Emigration" alone or even the phrase "Emigration Services" it is unlikely that it could claim that this word or phrase could become distinctive of its business. But for the reasons stated above "Emigration Group" is on a different footing.

The Respondent places weight on the fact that the Complainant's Internet presence is less than in other media. The Expert does not find this argument to be relevant in relation to whether the Complainant has Rights. The Policy does not require the Complainant to prove that its Rights arise in relation to the Internet. In any event the Complaint provides evidence that the Complainant does have a trading presence on the Internet. The Expert finds that this presence in conjunction with its trading activity in other media has given rise to protectable goodwill.

The Complainant also relies on its registration of the corporate name The Emigration Group Limited as evidence of its rights in the name. Had the Complainant solely relied on this fact to demonstrate its rights the Expert would not have been minded to find that the Complainant owned Rights under the Policy. It is the Complainant's manner of use of the name which has enabled the Expert to reach her conclusion.

There is no evidence before the Expert that the Complainant has registered "The Emigration Group" or "Emigration Group" as trade marks.

It follows that the Expert finds that the Complainant has Rights in the names "The Emigration Group" and "Emigration Group". These names are identical to the Domain Names (it being customary to disregard the suffix ".co.uk"). The first criterion of the Policy has accordingly been proved.

Abusive Registration

Abusive Registration is defined in clause 1 of the Policy as follows:

A Domain Name which either:

i was registered or otherwise acquired in a 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

ii has been used in a manner which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights

Clause 2 of the Policy sets out a list of non exhaustive factors which may be evidence that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration.

Registration or Acquistion

The factors which may be relevant to the registration or acquisition of the Domain Name are as follows:

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 Respondent.

There is no direct evidence before the Expert about the Respondent's motives for registering the Domain Name. The Expert is invited by the Complainant to draw inferences based on a conversation which took place on 20 May 2005 between the Complainant and Respondent. The Complainant's suggested inferences are that the Respondent was willing to sell the Domain Names for an amount in excess of its direct expenses, that the Respondent's primary motivation in registering the Domain Names was to block the Complainant's own registrations and that the Respondent is in the habit of making registrations of Domain Names in which the Respondent has no apparent interest.

The Complaint document includes references to the conversation in question but these are not contextualised. The Expert would have preferred to see a full transcript of the conversation in question or at least a contemporaneous attendance note before endorsing the Complainant's contentions. In particular, although there was an apparent reference to the cost of transferring the Domain Name, it is not apparent that the Respondent was offering to sell the Domain Names to the Complainant. There is also no evidence of any other Domain Names owned by the Respondent. The Expert notes that the Response does not take issue with the Complaint in relation to the conversation (a point that the Complainant makes in its Reply). But the Respondent does not appear to have a lawyer representing him in this matter (unlike the Complainant) and cannot be expected to have a firm grasp of the technicalities of formally pleading its case. The Expert is not minded to draw any significance from the fact that the Respondent does not formally reject the Complainant's account of the conversation. In the view of the Expert the brief and partial references to the conversation of 20 May 2005 do not discharge the Complainant's burden of proof to make out its case on the balance of probabilities.

Leaving aside the 20 May 2005 conversation the Complaint also asserts that the registration of the Domain names was Abusive on the following grounds:

The Domain Names were primarily registered to unfairly disrupt the Complainant's business because the Respondent's use of the Domain Names will confuse potential clients of the Complainant. It is averred that potential clients of the Complainant who are familiar with using the Internet may guess that the Complainant's website could be reached at the Domain Names and as such may wrongly assume that the Complainant does not have a website (this statement was made in the Complaint document before the Respondent had begun to use the Domain Names.)

The Domain Names were primarily registered as blocking registrations because at the time of the Complaint the Respondent was making no commercial use of them (this statement was made in the Complaint document before the Respondent had begun to use the Domain Names.)

Both of these assertions have to some extent been overtaken by events given that the Complainant has subsequently begun to make use of the Domain Names. Nevertheless the Expert must take into account the fact that the Respondent's use may have been prompted by the Complainant's assertions in the Complaint. In relation to this limb of Abusive Registration it is the Respondent's motivation at the time of registration in 2002 which is relevant

.

In relation to these grounds the Expert is unable to find that the Complainant has discharged its burden to prove the Complainant's primary motivation on the balance of probabilities. The Response puts forward the Respondent's case that in its view the Domain Names are descriptive of a type of business and that the Respondent was therefore as entitled to make use of the Domain Names as the Complainant. Even though the Expert finds this view to be misguided (as already discussed) there is nothing before the Expert to suggest that the Respondent was acting in bad faith when it secured the Domain Names or that his primary motivation at that time was disruption to the Complainant's business.

The Expert does not therefore find that the Complainant has been able to show on the balance of probabilities that the registration of the Domain Names at the time of registration took unfair advantage of or was detrimental to the Complainant's Rights.

Use of the Domain Names

Clause 2a of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of factors which may be evidence that the Domain Name has been used in a manner which took unfair advantage of or was wholly detrimental to the Complainant's Rights. The most relevant ground in the Complaint is that there are;

ii Circumstances indicating that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in a way that has confused people or businesses into believing that the Domain Name is registered to, operated or authorised by, or otherwise connected with The Complainant.

Clause 2b of the Policy provides that 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.

The Complainant does not specifically address this limb of Abusive Registration. In its Complaint its case is based on the registration of the Domain Names (at that point in time the Respondent was not of course actually using the Domain Names). The Reply adds nothing further to the substantive grounds of Complaint. The additional statement filed at the request of the Expert in October 2005 states that the Complainant maintains its position in accordance with the Complaint and Reply. The Expert finds it surprising that the Complainant- who does have the benefit of legal representation- has not specifically asserted that the use of the Domain Names by the Respondent subsequent to the filing of the Complaint is an Abusive Registration. Despite the absence of a specific assertion the Expert notes that the additional statement filed by the Complainant makes implicit reference to the Respondent's use. It refers to the disclaimer on the Respondent's site and to what the Complainant contends is the sham nature of the Respondent's site which- it states- serve simply to redirect the visitor to the Respondent's main workpermit.com site.

The Expert has to consider whether she is authorised to determine the Complaint on the basis of the Respondent's use of the Domain Names in these circumstances. Under Clause 16 of the procedure the Expert is authorised to decide a Complaint on the basis of the Parties' submissions, the Policy and the Procedure. She is accordingly authorised to take account of each of these elements collectively and is not confined to the matters raised in the Parties' submissions. The Expert can therefore consider whether the Respondent's use of the Domain Names is abusive even where that issue has not been raised specifically by the Complainant. The Expert is minded to do so. The Dispute Resolution Policy and Procedure is intended to be applied flexibly avoiding an overly technical approach. In the view of the Expert the Respondent will not be prejudiced should she determine the Complaint on the basis of use. The Respondent has indeed sought to address these issues. In its Response and the additional statement filed in October 2005 the Respondent has sought to demonstrate that its use of the Domain Names is legitimate. In particular in the additional statement the Respondent states that the Respondent's behaviour demonstrates that it has behaved entirely properly. Like any other immigration firm- it states- it should have the right to use the Domain Names. At the same time the Respondent points to the disclaimer which it has placed on the sites in dispute explaining that it has nothing to do with the Complainant. The Respondent also asserts that it has included a link to the Complainant's site and it provides evidence of what it states are the small number of hits that the sites operated by the Respondent under the Domain Names have attracted.

Having determined that she is free to do so the Expert will move on to consider whether the use of the Domain Names is abusive. There is no direct evidence before the Expert that any potential customers of the Complainant have been confused by the Domain Name Websites into believing that the sites are connected with the Complainant. Nevertheless the Expert finds that there is a significant likelihood that such confusion will occur. The Respondent operates in the same area of business as the Complainant (the fact that the Respondent offers services to a greater range of countries is in this respect irrelevant). It has chosen to operate its websites using the "Emigration Group" mark which has become associated with the Complainant. Not only that, it has designed the Domain Name Websites so that the words "Emigration Group" appear at the top of the homepage in relatively prominent type. Whilst it is true that the words appear alongside "Workpermit.com" the fact remains that the visitor to the Domain Name Websites who are expecting to see the Complainant's own website are unlikely to have their expectation corrected. The disclaimer which purports to clarify that the Domain Name Websites are not connected to the Complainant is in smaller type at the bottom of the homepage and the user has to scroll down the page to find it (which some visitors would never do). The Respondent should note that disclaimers are not a panacea in every case. To be effective they must clearly and prominently dispel the impression of a connection between the Respondent and the Complainant. The link to the Complainant's own site at the bottom of the disclaimer would, in the view of the Expert, be likely to increase the likelihood of an impression being created that the Complaint's and the Respondent's sites are linked and that the Complainant has authorised the Domain Name Websites in some sense.

The Respondent refers to the limited number of hits that the Domain Names have attracted since coming into operation alongside the relatively small Internet presence that the Complainant has compared to the Respondent. However this in itself will not safeguard against customer confusion. The Complainant is entitled to build on its goodwill by increasing its Internet presence should it choose to do so. The Respondent on the other hand is increasing its own Internet presence by (unwittingly or not) exploiting the Complainant's goodwill and in doing so is taking unfair advantage of the Complainant's Rights. This is not a legitimate activity.

The Respondent's submissions that it has traded for longer than the Complainant and that its operation of the websites will be superior to the Complainant are both irrelevant to this issue. The Respondent also alleges that the Complainant waited until 2005 to complain about the Domain Names (which were registered in 2002) and that this means that the Complainant had no real need for the Domain Names. But the relative extent of the need for the Domain Names between the Parties is not in itself relevant under the Policy especially where the Respondent's desire for the Domain Names can only be satisfied at the cost of damage to the goodwill which the Complainant has built in its trading name.

The Respondent should note that this decision does not purport to give the Complaint the sole right to the word "emigration". However it does find that the Complainant has developed goodwill in the "Emigration Group" name through its marketing and trading efforts which displaces any descriptive connotations. By operating websites which use the Complaint's trading style the Respondent has exploited the Complaint's goodwill and it is this exploitation that takes unfair advantage of the Complaint and is therefore abusive. The Expert makes no finding that the Respondent deliberately set out to abuse the Complainant's Rights. It is the likely effect of the Respondent's conduct with which the Expert is concerned.

The Expert finds that the use of the Domain Names by the Respondent in connection with the operation of the www.theemigrationgroup.co.uk and www.emigrationgroup.co.uk websites is abusive.

8. Decision

The Expert finds that the Complainant has proved on the balance of probabilities that it owns Rights in respect of names or marks which are identical or similar to the Domain Names and that the Domain Names in the hands of the Respondent are Abusive Registrations.

Accordingly the Expert finds in favour of the Complainant and directs that the Domain Names are transferred to the Complainant.

Sallie Spilsbury

30 October 2005