WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
CompuCredit Corporation, CompuCredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corporation III v. Domain Capital and Aspire Prints
Case No. D2007-0407
1. The Parties
The Complainant is CompuCredit Corporation, CompuCredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corporation III, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, represented by Troutman Sanders, LLP, Georgia, United States of America.
The Respondents are Domain Capital, New Jersey, United States of America, represented by ESQwire.com Law Firm, United States of America and Aspire Prints, Mumbai, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name <aspire.com> is registered with Lead Networks Domains Pvt. Ltd.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) by email on March 15, 2007, and in hardcopy on March 20, 2007. On March 19, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Lead Networks Domains Pvt. Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On March 21, 2007, Lead Networks Domains Pvt. Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Second Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact.
In response to a notification by the Center dated March 22, 2007, that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 23, 2007. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 26, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for the Response by the Respondents was April 15, 2007. A Response was filed by Aspire Prints with the Center on April 12, 2007 and by Domain Capital on April 13, 2007.
On April 25, 2007, supplemental filings were received from the Complainant in the form of a reply to both of the Respondents’ responses. On April 30, 2007, Aspire Prints responded to the Complainant’s reply.
The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on May 11, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
On May 25, 2007, the Panel issued Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 which allowed the Respondent, Domain Capital, a period of 7 days in which to reply to the supplemental filings of the other parties to the dispute. The decision of the Panel was postponed for one week after the expiry of this 7 day period. On June 1, 2007, Domain Capital responded to the supplemental filings of the Complainant and Aspire Prints.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is CompuCredit Corporation, CompuCredit Intellectual Property Holdings Corporation III, a corporation that provides credit and other similar financial service. It has offered general credit card lending and servicing activities since 1996 and provides unsecured general-purpose credit cards, including the ASPIRE visa credit card.
The Complainant is the registered owner of the domain name <aspirecard.com> and the trademarks ASPIRE, FOR EVERYTHING YOU ASPIRE TO BE, ASPIRE ROAD MILES, ASPIRE A MAS, ASPIRE AHORA in the United States of America (the “Aspire” marks).
Domain Capital is an intangible asset-based financial services company that provides capital to businesses to purchase domain names.
The current registrant of the Disputed Domain Name is stated to be Aspire Prints.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant believes that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s ASPIRE trademark and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s other trademarks and its domain name <aspirecard.com>. The Complainant asserts that the Aspire Prints engaged in cybersquatting and has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant further believes that both of the named Respondents have engaged in cyberflying.
The Complainant asserts that due to the numerous trademark rights it has acquired in the “Aspire” name and its domain name <aspirecard.com>, it has acquired an exclusive right to use the “Aspire” marks in the United States in connection with credit card services.
The Complainant submits that Domain Capital has never been known or identified by the name “Aspire” and has not acquired any trademark rights in the name. The Complainant believes that Domain Capital was aware of the Complainant’s credit card service and previous trademarks. The Complainant confirms that Domain Capital is not a licensee of the Complainant and is not otherwise authorized to use its ASPIRE trademark.
The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name creates an overall impression that would lead a member of the public to believe that it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name <aspirecard.com>. The only difference between the two domain names is the omission of the word “card”.
The Disputed Domain Name was used to promote credit card services until approximately January 24, 2007. This was during the time that Domain Capital was listed as the registrant. The Disputed Domain Name directed an Internet user to a website which contained information, advertisements and hyperlinks to a competitor of the Complainant. The Complainant believes that this use was intended to mislead and deceive the public as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name for the commercial gain of Domain Capital. The Complainant believes that this was not a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant further believes that both of the named Respondents have engaged in attempts to hide the identity of the actual controller of the Disputed Domain Name during this period.
The Complainant provides a screen shot of the Disputed Domain Name on January 19, 2007, in which a notice is displayed stating that the “ASPIRE VISA” had discontinued. The Complainant believes that this message was shown in an effort to deceive Internet users into obtaining a competing credit card. The Complainant asserts that this constituted bad faith on behalf of the First Respondent.
The Complainant cites the decision of Ross Simons, Inc v. Chan, WIPO Case No. D2003-0970 which states that “using a confusingly similar domain name… to redirect Internet traffic… to receive a commission is neither a bone fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate non commercial or [fair] use.”
On January 19, 2007, the Complainant wrote to Domain Capital, requesting that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. A response was received on January 25, 2007, in which Domain Capital stated that it had leased the use of the Disputed Domain Name to an unidentified client. Domain Capital further stated that it had terminated the lease agreement with the unidentified client and therefore no longer owned the Disputed Domain Name.
Five days after Domain Capital received the Complainant’s letter the Disputed Domain Name was transferred to the Second Respondent. The Complainant asserts that this is evidence that both of the named Respondents have engaged in cyberflying in order to prevent a finding of cybersquatting. In support of this assertion the Complainant cites the case of Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porche AG v Vladimir Putinov, WIPO Case No. D2004-0311 where the panel held that a transfer to a second respondent of the domain name at issue could not be recognized as it was carried out to “escape and obstruct the UDRP jurisdiction”. The panel in that decision held that the respondents had registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The Complainant believes that, despite the fact that the transfer in the present instance took place prior to the commencement of the proceedings, the substance and effect of the transfer is the same.
The Complainant further cites the case of Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 where the panel found that the domain name at issue was registered and used in bad faith despite the fact that the respondent has sought to transfer the domain name at issue before the proceedings commenced but after the receipt of a demand letter from the complainant.
The Complainant rejects Aspire Prints’ assertion that it has two partnership firms in India utilising the name “Aspire” as it believes that no verifiable evidence has been submitted to support this claim. Further, the Complainant believes that Aspire Prints did not disclose its name on the WhoIs register in order to conceal its identity from the Complainant.
The Complainant believes that, although there is no website currently in operation at the Disputed Domain Name, there is a risk that the use in bad faith could be resumed by the current registrant or that the Disputed Domain Name could be assigned to a third party who may abuse it.
B. Respondents
Domain Capital
Domain Capital submits that it should not be named as a Respondent in this dispute as it was not the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name when the Complaint was submitted. Domain Capital asserts that it has not acted in bad faith for the reasons set out below.
Domain Capital operates its domain name purchasing services under a lease/buyback agreement where a monthly fee is paid by a lessee and the lessee retains the right to buyback the domain name after the lease obligations are fulfilled. Domain Capital states that it assigned the Disputed Domain Name on August 15, 2006, to an undisclosed lessee under such an arrangement but that, as per normal practice, it remained listed as registrant of the Disputed Domain Name in order to secure the lessee’s financial obligations.
Domain Capital further states that the registration for the Disputed Domain Name was transferred in full to the same undisclosed lessee on January 24, 2007, by virtue of a Bill of Sale and Transfer Agreement. On January 26, 2007, Domain Capital ceased to be listed as the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name.
Domain Capital explains that at the time of registration of a domain name it is an established fact that a domain name will be transferred to the relevant lessee at some future point as per its normal practice. Domain Capital maintains that the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name in this case had nothing to do with the potential conflict with the Complainant and was the result of this standard practice. Domain Capital includes a copy of its standard Lease Agreement in support of this assertion and also as evidence that it has no control over the use that a lessee may make of a domain name once assigned.
Domain Capital submits that it is in no way affiliated with Aspire Prints and confirms that the Aspire Prints is not the undisclosed lessee referred to above. Domain Capital notes that on March 28, 2007, the Center communicated to it that Aspire Prints had informed the Center that the Domain Capital was not a party to the dispute and accordingly should be removed.
Domain Capital states that the Policy defines “Respondent” as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated”. Domain Capital notes the decision of Afma, Inc. v Globemedia, WIPO Case No. D2001-0558 which states that “the Rules are quite explicit that the Respondent in a UDRP proceedings is the Registrant”. Therefore Domain Capital believes that the only possible respondent to this Complaint is Aspire Prints and notes the recurring admissions by Aspire Prints confirming this position. Domain Capital maintains that it is evidence of bad faith on the part of the Complainant that it will not release it from the Complaint.
Finally, Domain Capital denies that this is a case of cyberflying. As stated above, it submits that the sole reason for it being listed as registrant of the Disputed Domain Name was to secure the lessee’s financial obligations. Domain Capital cites the case of Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porche AG v. Vladimir Putinov et al, WIPO Case No. D2004-0311 which defines cyberflying as “the transfer of a domain name registration to another holder during a ‘pending’ proceeding”. Domain Capital asserts that there was no proceedings pending when it transferred the Disputed Domain Name on January 24, 2007, and therefore no cyberflying can be found to be present. Domain Capital submits that timing is a “crucial element” of cyberflying and that as the date of the transfer was six weeks before the Complaint was made, no cyberflying can be found to have occurred.
Aspire Prints
Aspire Prints denies that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to that of the Complainant. Aspire Prints believes that the ASPIRE mark is not exclusively associated with the Complainant as other companies have registered trademarks for the ASPIRE mark. It further submits that the word “aspire” is generic and cannot be monopolised by one entity. Aspire Prints provides evidence of 186 trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office that contain the word “aspire”.
Aspire Prints asserts that it has a legitimate interest in the name “Aspire” as currently two of its Partnership firms “Aspire Prints” and “Aspire Marketing” operate in India.
Aspire Prints further asserts that an educational company “Aspire Learning Corporation” used the Disputed Domain Name previous to the registration by the First Respondent and that this is evidence that Aspire Prints could also use the Disputed Domain Name without weakening the Complainant’s trademarks.
Further, Aspire Prints denies that it is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to confuse and mislead the public. There is no website currently in operation at the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent states that this is due to the fact that the registrar locked the Disputed Domain Name before it had the opportunity to establish one.
Aspire Prints further denies having any knowledge of the Complainant or its credit card services. It states that it purchased the Disputed Domain Name through a broker W7 Media on January 18, 2007, and submits that the previous owner was one Mr. Michael McGreevy. As stated above, there has been no website in operation at the address since the date that Aspire Prints acquired the Disputed Domain Name and therefore, it believes it cannot be held responsible for the website of the previous registrant.
Aspire Prints rejects the claim that this is a case cyberflying. It submits that there is no link between it and Domain Capital and further submits that Domain Capital should not be a party to this dispute and therefore, submissions from Domain Capital should not be considered in deciding the outcome of the Complaint. As stated above, Aspire Prints maintains that it purchased the Disputed Domain Name through a broker W7 Media. It submits that it would not have been possible to transfer the Disputed Domain Name from Domain Capital in the five day time-frame alleged by the Complainant.
Furthermore, Aspire Prints believes that the Domain Capital and the Complainant are working together in an attempt to deprive the Aspire Prints of the Disputed Domain Name.
Aspire Prints also denies that it did not reveal its name on the Whois register in order to conceal its identity. It submits that it used a private Whois to prevent individuals who wished to purchase the Disputed Domain Name from sending unsolicited emails.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Respondent Identity
A preliminary question in this case concerns the identity of the appropriate Respondent or Respondents. The Complaint, filed with the Center on March 15, 2007, originally named as Respondents both “Domain Capital” and “Private Whois”. The Complainant also provided documentary evidence of correspondence it had conducted with “Domain Capital” indicating inter alia that the Disputed Domain Name had previously been the subject of a lease arrangement between Domain Capital and a third party, and indicating further that Domain Capital claimed that at the conclusion of that arrangement it had transferred the Disputed Domain Name to an undisclosed entity pursuant to a sale and transfer agreement concluded on or around January 24, 2007. Whois printouts attached to the Complaint indicate the listed registrant of record on February 23, 2007 as “Private Whois”. In reply to the Center’s request for registrar verification, the registrar on March 21, 2007 identified the current registrant as “Aspire Prints”. This information was also made available (presumably by the registrar) in the publicly accessible Whois data. The Complainant subsequently amended the Complaint to add “Aspire Prints” as a Respondent.
It is thus undisputed that Aspire Prints is the current listed holder of the registration for the Disputed Domain Name. As such, Aspire Prints is a Respondent in the present proceedings. “Privacy Whois” appears to be a privacy protection service, of the sort increasingly commonly used to shield the identity of an underlying or beneficial registrant.
Domain Capital is a previous registrant of the Disputed Domain Name. While this fact alone does not justify the inclusion of Domain Capital as a Respondent, nor does Domain Capital’s claim that it was not the listed holder of the Disputed Domain Name at the time the Complaint was filed establish to the Panel’s satisfaction that Domain Capital must be excluded as a Respondent in this case. In the present circumstances, as further discussed below, there are other factors at play.
It is possible to envisage circumstances in which an initial registrant of a domain name may retain an ongoing beneficial interest in that domain name, such as through an agency contract or more informal arrangement, such that a subsequent registrant could be deemed to be acting in effect on behalf of the previous registrant. Previous panels have recognized that in such cases there may indeed be more than one Respondent. In so-called privacy cases, it is not uncommon for panels to include as Respondent, in addition to the listed registrant of a disputed domain name, an underlying or beneficial registrant. See for example: WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature aka WWF International v. Moniker Online Services LLC and Gregory Ricks, WIPO Case No. D2006-0975; TDS Telecommunications Corporation v. Registrant [20758] Nevis Domains and Registrant [117460] Moniker Privacy Services, WIPO Case No. D2006-1620.
In the present case, consistent with supporting materials provided by the Complainant, Domain Capital claims to have assigned and subsequently transferred the Disputed Domain Name to an “undisclosed lessee” pursuant to a sale and transfer agreement on January 24, 2007. Domain Capital states that, as per its normal practice, it had initially remained listed as registrant of the Disputed Domain Name in order to “secure the lessee’s financial obligations”. It further states that the “Lessor, having satisfied its obligations under the Lease/Buyback Agreement”, exercised its right to “buy back” the Disputed Domain Name, and that as of January 24, 2007, Domain Capital was no longer the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name. Without clarifying the precise nature of the obligations and relationship between what are stated to be the “Lessor” and “Lessee” parties, Domain Capital states that it can confirm that the Lessee at any rate is not Aspire Prints. For what are stated to be confidentiality reasons the identities of specific parties to the Agreement are not provided.
Due in part to the apparent use of a privacy service, the precise date and circumstances in which any change in underlying registrant information for the Disputed Domain Name took place remains unclear. Although the underlying registrant of the Disputed Domain Name was not disclosed by the registrar as “Aspire Prints” until March 21, 2007, Aspire Prints itself claims to have purchased the Disputed Domain Name from one “Mr. Michael McGreevy”, through a broker, W7Media, in a deal stated to have been completed on January 18, 2007. In support, Aspire Prints provides a one-page document, purporting to be an invoice, dated January 30, 2007 and signed by a “Steen Hof, COO”. The document, which also appears to have been signed, stamped and notarised in “Bombay” on April 26, 2007, further includes the following information:
“Date: 01/17/2006, Description: Aspire.com domain acquisition brokerage – acquired via private owner, Cost: 48000USD.”
The name of the referred-to “private owner”, or indeed the nature of any relationship that such person or entity may have or have had with current or previously listed registrants of record for the Disputed Domain Name, is not established.
In the circumstances, the Panel finds claims regarding the lack of any arrangement between Domain Capital or its representatives and Aspire Prints as to the acquisition by the latter, or indeed potential future use, of the Disputed Domain Name to be difficult to believe. It appears that Domain Capital, as previous registrant of the Disputed Domain Name, had the domain name transferred to an unspecified third party on or around January 24, 2007. At a proximate time, within days at the most, whether through a broker or otherwise, Aspire Prints acquired the Disputed Domain Name. That such a transfer could be effected so expeditiously does not strike the Panel as likely to have been a co-incidence. The Panel also does not entirely exclude the possibility, particularly in light of the purported lease arrangement and failure of Domain Capitol to disclose the identity of the so-called previous lessee (or indeed lessor) of the Disputed Domain Name, that Aspire Prints (despite its claimed belief that Domain Capital is working with the Complainant in an attempt to deprive it of the Disputed Domain Name) may in some manner be representing at least de facto on-going interests of Domain Capital or its agents. To this extent the inclusion of Domain Capital as a Respondent is appropriate.
B. UDRP Elements
If the Complainant is to succeed, it must prove each of the three elements referred to in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely that:
i. the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
ii. the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
iii. the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will proceed to establish whether the Complainant has discharged the burden of proof in respect of each of the three elements referred to in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts the evidence of the Complainant that it has offered credit card services since 1996, that it has registered trademark rights in the United States of America in connection with the ASPIRE marks and that it has invested itself considerably in promoting the ASPIRE marks within that time in connection with these services. Therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the “Aspire” name in connection with credit card services.
Disregarding the gTLD “.com” in accordance with well-established panel practice, the Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s ASPIRE trademark. The Panel finds incidentally that the Disputed Domain Name is also confusingly similar in substance to the Complainant’s domain name <aspirecard.com>, the word “card” being simply generic to the Complainant’s area of business. In this regard the Panel notes the case of La Societé des Autoroutes Paris Rhin Rhône v. Keyword Marketing Inc. WIPO Case No. D2006-1270 where the omission of the word “autoroutes” in the respondent’s domain name did not prevent the panel from finding that the domain name and the complainant’s marks were confusingly similar.
The Panel notes the existence of the other trademarks FOR EVERYTHING YOU ASPIRE TO BE, ASPIRE ROAD MILES, ASPIRE A MAS, and ASPIRE AHORA but believes that the Complainant has already shown that it sufficiently fulfils paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in relation to the above.
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
If, without deciding the issue here, it were the case that Aspire Prints was holding the Disputed Domain Name on behalf of or subject to an arrangement with Domain Capital, it would be relevant to note that Domain Capital has not been commonly known by the name “Aspire” and that it does not hold any trademark rights in that name or mark. Also, it has not provided any evidence that it was using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with an existing or future bona fide offering of goods or services. In fact, during the period that Domain Capital was the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name, the website at that address contained links to the credit card offerings of competitors of the Complainant. This cannot be said to be a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel rejects the evidence submitted by Aspire Prints to attempt to establish that it is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Aspire Prints has only offered certified copies of Income Tax Department Cards bearing the name “Aspire Prints” and “Aspire Marketing” in an effort to prove that it is carrying on business under these names. The Panel finds that this is inadequate evidence to prove that Aspire Prints is actually commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel notes that as demonstrated by numerous UDRP cases there are many and more obvious ways for a business to establish its identity.
While Aspire Prints submits that the word “aspire” is generic, for this to be a relevant factor there would generally need to be evidence that the term is in fact being used in that generic sense; for example, to sell a product generally described by, as distinct from merely taking advantage of third party rights in, that term. See e.g. Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. This is particularly so in cases such as the present where the Complainant has provided evidence of registered trademark rights identical to the term at issue, and where as previously noted the Respondent was most likely aware that such rights were being asserted.
Furthermore, Aspire Prints has not provided any evidence of any trademark rights or of any other legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant fulfils Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy it shall be deemed to be evidence of registration and use in bad faith if the use of a domain name is intended to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of a website.
The Panel notes, as previously, that if Aspire Prints was acting on behalf of the Respondent, it would be relevant to note that during the period that Domain Capital was the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name the corresponding website provided links to competitors of the Complainant. The website also contained a message that the “Aspire Card has Discontinued” and offered the names of other credit cards that could be obtained instead.
Domain Capital asserts that it had leased the Disputed Domain Name and believes that it cannot be held responsible for the use that its undisclosed licensee made of it. The Panel rejects this assertion. Domain Capital was the named registrant of the Disputed Domain Name when it was used to maintain the website that attracted consumers away from the Complainant’s services. Therefore it is the party that is responsible for the content of the website at that time.
The principal manifestation of cyberflight in general has been when a registrant, in an effort to avoid judicial or UDRP proceedings, transfers a domain name after a complaint has been made against it. In this case it appears that the Disputed Domain Name was transferred by Domain Capital after it was sent a letter by the Complainant objecting to the use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with credit card services. The Disputed Domain Name was then registered by Aspire Prints within at most a number of days. The Panel finds that this suggests bad faith on the part of Aspire Prints.
This finding should not be construed as authority for the proposition that what in different circumstances may be an entirely legitimate and innocent acquisition of a domain name should as it were be ‘tarred’ by the brush of a previous registrant’s bad faith. The critical element in the Panel’s mind in the present case is that Aspire Prints, without rights or clearly established interests of its own, chose to acquire that particular domain name in what would appear to be rather ambiguous circumstances, in which it very likely knew, or at least should have known, of the Complainant’s registered rights in the ASPIRE mark.
Despite the fact that Domain Capitol argues that timing is the “crucial element” of cyberflying, as a matter of principle the Panel will not allow what would appear in the circumstances of this particular case to be an attempt to manipulate the Policy to circumvent the trademark rights of the Complainant.
This has been a feature of a number of previous decisions. In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Secure Whois Information Service, WIPO Case No. D2006-0696, the panel found that, despite the fact that the respondent involved did not fulfil the strict criteria of paragraph 8(a) of the Policy as the domain name at issue was deleted and re-registered after the receipt by the respondents of a cease-and-desist email but before a complaint was actually made, there was evidence of cyberflying and therefore bad faith on the part of the respondent.
The Panel is not convinced on the available evidence that the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to Aspire Prints occurred on an arm’s length basis, or that Aspire Prints came to the table with ‘clean hands’.
The Panel finds the acquisition of the Disputed Domain Name by Aspire Prints, although evidently a fait accompli in terms of the registration information contained in the Whois, to have been in bad faith.
Particularly in view of the Complainant’s registered ASPIRE trademark and Aspire Print’s lack thereof, it is difficult to conceive of any use of the Disputed Domain Name by Aspire Prints that in these circumstances would not be in breach of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that, the circumstances are such as to warrant a finding of registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(a) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <aspire.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Alistair Payne
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 12, 2007