Telefónica del Perú SAA v. netEGG.COM

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Telefonica Del Peru SAA V. netEGG.COM

Case No. D2001-1248

1. The Parties

Complainant is Telefonica del Peru SAA ("Complainant") a company

organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Peru, with principal

place of business at Av. Arequipa 1155, 6° Piso, Santa Beatriz, Lima, Peru.

Respondent is netEGG.COM ("Respondent"), whose address, as

provided by the Registrar, at 1437 Rhode Island Ave NW 502, Washington, DC 20005,

U.S.A.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The domain name at issue is <cablemagico.com> (the "Domain Name")

which is registered with The Ait Domains Corporation ("the Registrar"),

with principal place of business at Fayetteville, North Carolina, United States

of America. The Registrar has voluntarily adopted the Uniform Domain Name Dispute

Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or the "UDRP") and has selected

the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center

(the "WIPO Center") as a dispute resolution services provider.

3. Procedural History

3.1 A Complaint was submitted electronically to the WIPO Center on October 15, 2001,

and the signed version was received on October 22, 2001. An Acknowledgment of

Receipt was sent by the WIPO Center to the Complainant, dated October 19, 2001.

3.2 On October 24, 2001, the Registrar confirmed by e-mail that the Domain

Name is registered with it, is currently in active status, and that the Respondent

is the current registrant of the Domain Name. The Registrar also forwarded the

requested Whois details, and confirmed that a copy of the Complaint had been

sent to it by the Complainant and that the Policy is in effect.

3.3 The WIPO Center determined that the Complaint satisfies the formal requirements

of the Policy, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the

"Uniform Rules") and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name

Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules"). The Sole Panelist

has independently determined and agrees with the assessment of the WIPO Center

that the Complaint is in formal compliance with the requirements of the UDRP,

adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN")

on August 26, 1999 the Uniform Rules, and the Supplemental Rules.

3.4 On October 30, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative

Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification") was transmitted to the

Respondent (with copies to the Complainant and the Registrar), setting a deadline

of November 19, 2001, by which the Respondent could file a Response to the Complaints.

The Commencement Notification was transmitted to the Respondent by courier and

by e-mail to the e-mail addresses indicated in the Complaint. In any event,

evidence of proper notice is provided by the evidence in the record of the Respondent’s

participation in these proceedings.

3.5 On November 5, 2001, Mr. Louis Rosenfeld, person that has been acting on

behalf of the Respondent, sent an e-mail communication to Complainant, with

carbon copy to the Center, making an offer to come to a monetary agreement over

the Domain Name.

3.6 On November 20, 2001, the Center advised Respondent that it was in default

for failing to file its Response. No Response has been received.

3.7 On December 10, 2001, after the Center received a completed and signed

Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence from

Mr. Sergio Rodriguez Castillo (the "Sole Panelist"), the Center notified

the parties of the appointment of a single-member panel consisting of the Sole

Panelist.

3.8 On December 27, 2001, the Center notified the parties that, as per request

of the Sole Panelist, the deadline for rendering the final decision had been

extended to January 5, 2002.

3.9 On January 4, 2002, based on Paragraph 12 of the Uniform Rules, the Sole

Panelist requested for certain clarifications from the Complainant regarding

the relation between it and a company named "CPT-Telefonica del Peru, S.A.",

company that registered the trademarks referred to in paragraph 4.1 below.

3.10 On January 10, 2002, the Sole Panelist received a reply from Complainant,

informing that it and "CPT-Telefonica del Peru, S.A." are the same

legal entity.

4. Factual Background

Given the absence of a Response, the following facts presented by Complainant

are undisputed:

4.1 Complainant has registered the service trademark "cable magico"

in Peru (Complaint, Exhibit G), by the following certificates issued by the

pertinent authority [1]:

i. Certificate 011146 dated June 17, 1997, in force until June 17, 2007, consisting

in the words "CABLE MAGICO" written in characteristic letters and

with a logo, covering telecommunications services under International Class

38.

ii. Certificate 011098 dated June 16, 1997, in force until June 16, 2007, consisting

in the words "CABLE MAGICO" written in characteristic letters and

with a logo, covering telecommunications services under International Class

38.

iii. Certificate 9188 dated December 9, 1996, in force until December 9, 2006,

consisting in the words "CABLE MAGICO" written in characteristic letters

and with a logo, covering construction, repair, maintenance and inspection services

under International Class 37.

iv. Certificate 8256 dated September 6, 1996, in force until September 6, 2006,

consisting in the words "CABLE MAGICO" written in characteristic letters

and with a logo, covering construction, repair, maintenance and inspection services

under International Class 37.

v. Certificate 9667 dated January 22, 1997, in force until January 22, 2007,

consisting in the words "CABLE MAGICO" written in characteristic letters

and with a logo, covering construction, repair, maintenance and inspection services

under International Class 37.

vi. Certificate 8255 dated September 6, 1996, in force until September 6, 2006,

consisting in the words "CABLE MAGICO" written in characteristic letters

and with a logo, covering construction, repair, maintenance and inspection services

under International Class 37.

vii. Certificate 8188 dated August 29, 1996, in force until August 29, 2006,

consisting in the words "CABLE MAGICO" covering construction, repair,

maintenance and inspection services under International Class 37.

4.2 These marks will be referred hereinafter as the "Cable Magico Marks".

4.3 Complainant has registered the domain name <cablemagico.com.pe>

on September 10, 2000, Complaint, Annex G.

4.4 Respondent registered the domain name at issue on November 13, 2000. Complaint,

Annex B.

4.5 As evidenced in Complaint, Exhibit D the parties held the following communications:

i. On April 27, 2001, Complainant, through Mr. Marcelo Neira but without identifying

himself as Telefonica del Peru, sent an e-mail message to the e-mail address

"mailto:buyit@netegg.com" stating that he was aware that the Domain

Name was for sale for US $980.00; declaring its interest in purchasing it, and

offering US$800.00 for such purposes.

ii. On that same date, Respondent sent an e-mail message without identifying

the name of the sender, confirming that the Domain Name was for sale, but that

its price was US $19,990.00; and providing all the required information in order

to purchase it.

iii. On April 28, 2001, Mr. Neira sent another e-mail message to Respondent,

providing the information and URL where it has learned that the Domain Name

was for sale. On that same date, Respondent sent the exact same reply sent on

April 27, 2001.

iv. On May 7, 2001, Respondent sent an e-mail message to Mr. Neira, asking

him to "make an offer for this domain", i.e., the Domain Name.

v. On May 8, 2001, Mr. Neira replied to Respondent declaring that he was interested

in the Domain Name but that it could not pay more than US $1,300.00. On that

same date, Mr. Louis Rosenfeld, on behalf of Respondent, replied to Mr. Neira

asking him where was he located and whether he owned a company with the name

of the Domain Name.

vi. On May 15, 2001, Mr. Neira replied to Mr. Rosenfeld, informing him that

he was in Peru and that it did own a company named "Cable Magico".

Mr. Rosenfeld replied stating that "To own <cablemagico.com>

could be one of your best investments for your company." inviting Mr. Neira

to "make a good offer" since he would "not let go it (i.e., the

Domain Name) for less than $10,000.00

vii. On May 16, 2001, Mr. Neira made his final offer for US$5,000.00; Mr. Rosenfeld

replied requesting to Mr. Neira to "make it $7,500 and <cablemagico.com>

is yours". Mr. Neira refused to make another offer and insisted in buying

it for US$5,000.00

viii. After that date, Respondent, via Mr. Rosenfeld, sent e-mail messages

to Mr. Neira on May 16 and May 21, offering him to accept a partial payment

of US$5,000.00 and the remaining US$2,500.00 at a later date. Complainant submitted

the Complaint on October 15, 2001

ix On November 5, 2001, Mr. Louis Rosenfeld, sent an e-mail message to Complainant,

stating that, his lawyer had advised him to come to an agreement with respect

to the Domain Name, and due to the fact that Complainant trademarks would be

"accepted by WIPO"; for that reason, it was ready to accept US$300.00

for the Domain Name. There have not been further communications between the

parties.

4.7 The authenticity of all these electronic communications has not been disputed

by Respondent.

5. Parties’ Contentions

5.1 Complainant contends that, since the Domain Name is identical to the Cable

Magico Marks and the Peruvian domain name <cablemagico.com.pe> it is confusingly

similar with the telecommunications services it provides.

5.2 Complainant contends that Respondent lacks the legitimate right or interest

over the use of the Domain Name, since it is not the holder of any registered

trademark, nor the right to its use. Complainant further contends that Respondent

is not well known, nor can it be identified with the trademark CABLE MAGICO

and that Respondent registered the Domain Name with the purpose of selling it

to Respondent or a competitor; arguing that such purpose has be evidenced by

the electronic mails, whereby Respondent asked for US$19,990.00 for the Domain

Name, a price that, the Complainant contends, exceeds the costs directly related

to the maintenance of the Domain Name.

5.3 Complainant contends that Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith,

since the inability of Complainant to access the Domain Name is causing serious

damage to an appropriate development of business on the network. Further, Complainant

contends that the Respondent is presenting adult content on a web site, whereby

reference is made to a "cable magico" with the intention of attracting

Internet users for profit, while tarnishing the prestige of the telecommunications

services identified by the Cable Magico Marks, since it misleads the consumer

regarding its corporate origin.

5.4 Complainant requests that the Panel issue a resolution asking the Registrar

to transfer the Domain Name from Respondent to it.

5.5 Respondent failed to contest Complainant’s assertion that it has registered

the Cable Magico Marks or that the Domain Name is identical with and confusingly

similar to the Cable Magico Marks.

5.6 Respondent failed to contest Complainant’s assertion that Respondent has

no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.

5.7 Respondent failed to contest Complainant’s assertion that Respondent registered

and used the Domain Name in bad faith.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 The Sole Panelist considers that the Respondent, by registering the Domain

Name with the Registrar, agreed to be bound by all terms and conditions of its

Service Agreement, and any pertinent rule or policy, and particularly agreed

to be bound by the Policy (incorporated and made a part of the Service Agreement

by reference), which request that proceedings be conducted according to the

Rules and the Supplemental Rules. Therefore, the dispute subject matter of this

proceeding is within the scope of the above-mentioned agreements and Policy,

and this Sole Panelist has jurisdiction to decide this dispute.

6.2 Furthermore, the Sole Panelist considers also by entering into the above-mentioned

Service Agreement, the Respondent agreed and warranted that neither the registration

of its domain name nor the manner in which it may intend to use such domain

name will directly or indirectly infringe the legal rights of a third party,

and that in order to resolve a dispute under the Policy, the Respondent’s domain

name registration services may be suspended, cancelled or transferred.

6.3 The Sole Panelist also considers it particularly essential for dispute

resolution proceedings that the fundamental due process requirements be met.

Such requirements include that Respondent have being given adequate notice of

proceedings initiated against them; that the parties may have a fair and reasonable

opportunity to respond, exercise their rights and present their respective cases;

that the parties be notified of the appointment of this Sole Panelist; and,

that both parties be treated equally in these administrative proceedings.

6.4 In the case subject matter of this proceeding, the Sole Panelist is satisfied

with the manner in which these proceedings have been carried out, complying

with such elemental due diligence requirements, and particularly contemplating

the notification of the filing of the Complaint and the initiation of these

proceedings, giving the Respondent a right to respond.

6.5 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles

the Panel is to use for determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide

a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance

with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law it deems applicable."

6.6 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each

of the following:

(1) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly

similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

and

(2) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests with respect to the domain

name; and

(3) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

6.7 Although Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest the Complainant’s

assertions, the Sole Panelist will review the evidence proffered by Complainant

to verify that the essential elements of the claims are met.

6.8 Due to said default by the Respondent, the Sole Panelist is directed to

decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complaint, as provided

by paragraph 14(a) of the Uniform Rules. Therefore, certain factual conclusions

may be drawn by the Sole Panelist on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations

and the Respondent default (Uniform Rules 14(b)).

6.9 Identity or Confusing Similarity

6.9.1 Complainant contends that it has several registrations of the Cable Magico

Marks, the earliest dated August 29, 1996. Complainant further contends that

the Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the Cable Magico

Marks pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(a)(i), and that Respondent has misappropriated

the terms Cable Magico, entirely, as the dominant portion of the Domain Name.

6.9.2 Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainant that it has

valid registrations of the Cable Magico Marks. Therefore, the Sole Panelist

finds, for the purpose of this proceeding, that Complainant has enforceable

rights in the Cable Magico Marks, since August 1996.

6.9.3 The fact that the Cable Magico Marks are not trademarks registered in

the United States but in Peru, is irrelevant for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i)

of the Policy, since it only requires for the domain name to be similar or confusingly

similar to a trademark over which the Complainant has rights.

6.9.4 The Sole Panelist notes that the Domain Name was registered by Respondent

in November 2000. Therefore, the Sole Panelist determines that Complainant’s

rights over the words "cable magico" arose before Respondent’s registration

of the Domain Name.

6.9.5 Further, Respondent does not dispute that Domain Name is identical or

confusingly similar to the Cable Magico Marks in which the Complainant has rights.

6.9.6 The Sole Panelist notes that the entirety of the word group "cable

magico" is included in the Domain Name, the only differences being that

the Domain Name eliminates the spaces between the two words and that it employs

lower case letters. As previous panels had resolved in the past [2],

the Sole Panelist concludes that, considering that domain names are not case

sensitive, and that the elimination of spaces is a technical requirement and

common practice when registering a domain name, the use of the lower letter

format in the Domain Name and the elimination of spaces between the two words,

is irrelevant when comparing the similarities among the Domain Name and the

Cable Magico Marks.

6.9.7 Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly

similar to the Cable Magico Marks, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

6.10 Rights or Legitimate Interest.

6.10.1 Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest

in the Domain Name.

6.10.2 The Policy, paragraph 4(c) provides for three non-exclusive ways for

a Respondent to demonstrate its rights to and legitimate interest in a Domain

Name:

(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable

preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name

in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have

been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark

or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of

the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers

or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

6.10.3 Although the Policy, and paragraph 4(a), clearly states that it is for

the Complainant to prove each of the elements provided therein, it is clear

by the language used in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, that with respect to paragraph

4(a)(ii) the burden of demonstrating such right or legitimate interest

falls on the Respondent.

6.10.4 In the present case, the Sole Panelist has not received from Respondent

any evidence that it has used the Domain Name, in any manner or form (including

non-commercial or fair use), before the initiation of the dispute, nor that

Respondent was preparing to use it. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Complainant

does mention that the Respondent has directed the Domain Name to a website that

presents adult content (the "Adult Site"), whereby the words "cable

magico" appear.

6.10.5 The question to be answered now, is whether directing the Domain Name

to the Adult Site presenting, when accessed, the legend " ‘cablemagico’

cablemagico.com conectate al mundo porno por un cable", which can be translated

as: "‘cablemagico’ cablemagico.com contact the porn world via cable"

(the "Legend") constitutes a use in connection with a bona fide

offering of goods or services, as provided by paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

6.10.6 It is worth mentioning that it is not contested whether the operation

of the Adult Site or any website of adult content is a legitimate form of Internet

business; but whether directing the Domain Name to it and its inclusion, together

with the Legend, can be referred to as a bona fides offering of services or

goods.

6.10.7 It is the Sole Panelist’s opinion that in absence of any other circumstances,

it would be hard to determine the intentions of Respondent’s use in directing

the Domain Name to the Adult Site. There is, however, a precedent also involving

the Respondent [3]. Such case is relevant,

since the Respondent in it acts in exactly the same manners describe in the

Factual Background above. There, as in this case, the complainant contacted

respondent requesting information about a domain name. Respondent answered stating

that the selling price had increased to $29,990; subsequently, respondent rerouted

the site to a site of adult content called <prostitutas.com>. The Sole

Panelist finds these parallelisms significant in order to infer the intention

of the Respondent. As previous panels have concluded, the fact that paragraph

4(c)(i) of the Policy refers to "bona fide" (i.e., good faith) offerings,

occasionally leads, to the evaluation of common factors among paragraphs 4(c)

and 4(b) which refer to bad faith.

6.10.8 It has been stated by previous panels, that the registration and offering

for sale of domain names may constitute, under certain circumstances, a legitimate

interest. The Sole Panelist agrees with such statement [4].

Nonetheless, in the present case, the recurrent behavior of Respondent in at

least another documented case, makes the Sole Panelist conclude that such use

of the Domain Name cannot be considered a bona fide offering as required by

paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Such finding, when weighed together with the

absence of any evidence submitted by Respondent to the contrary, lead us to

conclude that the sole purpose of Respondent in registering the Domain Name

was to sell it; hence, it lacked any legitimate interest over the Domain Name

as provided by paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

6.10.9 Additional corroboration of Respondent’s lack of legitimate interest

in the Domain Name can be inferred from the fact that, when Respondent felt

that the probabilities of succeeding in these proceedings were against him,

it tried to contact Complainant in order to offer it the Domain Name for an

amount significantly smaller that the one originally requested.

6.10.10 With respect to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii) and (iii), Respondent

has not produced any evidence that it has been commonly known by the Domain

Name nor that it was making a non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name

without intent to commercially profit from [5].

6.10.11 Based on the foregoing, the Sole Panelist finds that Respondent has

no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name, pursuant to the Policy,

paragraph 4(a)(ii).

6.11 Bad Faith

6.11.1 Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Domain

Name in bad faith, in violation of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

6.11.2 The Policy, paragraph 4(b), sets forth four non-exclusive, non-limitating

criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of domain names:

(i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have

acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise

transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner

of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for

valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly

related to the domain name; or

(ii) you [Respondent] have registered the domain name in order to prevent the

owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding

domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you [Respondent] have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose

of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted

to attract, for commercial profit, Internet users to your web site or other

on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's

mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web

site or location or of a product.

6.11.3 Complainant sets forth facts that affirm, show the bad faith of Respondent.

In its opinion, the inability of Complainant, to access the domain name, hence

suffering serious business damage, and the fact that Respondent has rerouted

the Domain Name to the Adult Site, therefore tarnishing the prestige of the

Cable Magico Marks, are acts of bad faith.

6.11.4 Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the Domain

Name with the intention of selling it to Complainant, for a price exceeding

the costs directly related to the maintenance of the domain name.

6.11.5 None of these contentions were disputed by Respondent.

6.11.6 The Sole Panelist considers that Complainant has not produced significant

evidence in order to prove its two first arguments, and that its mere assertion

are not appropriate in order to establish bad faith, if any, of Respondent.

Therefore, only the third will be analyzed.

6.11.7 It can be inferred from the undisputed Factual Background, that Respondent’s

main activity is to sell domain names, activity that by itself should neither

be considered as illegitimate, nor as a bad faith behavior. To put it in the

words of a previous panel (with which the Sole Panelists concurs): "There

is nothing inherently wrongful in the offer or sale of domain names, without

more, such as to justify a finding of bad faith under the Policy. However, the

fact that domain name registrants may legitimately and in good faith sell domain

names does not imply a right in such registrants to sell domain names that are

identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks of others without

their consent." [6]

6.11.8 As previously stated, it could be argued in favor of companies dedicated

to registering and selling domain names, that such conduct is licit. This, however,

should not be considered, when such companies operate by registering trademarks

and then selling them to their owners. That kind of conduct has repeatedly being

considered constituting bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)

of the Policy.

6.11.9 In the present case, the Sole Panelist cannot overlook the pattern of

conduct demonstrated by Respondent in a previous case. As it has done in the

past, since its very first e-mail, Respondent requested for an amount that significantly

exceeded its out-of pocket costs. It is significant that the Respondent’s representative,

Mr. Louis Rosenfeld, limits his first personal communication to inquiring whether

Respondent had a company with the name of the Domain Name. Further, Respondent’s

action of redirecting domain names to the Adult Site, as a pressuring measure,

is an additional factor that indicates a inadmissible way of conduct. Moreover,

the fact that Respondent approached Complainant in an attempt to settle this

Complaint for a small amount of money in comparison to what it had originally

asked for aware that, in its own words "it seems your trademark in Peru

will be accepted by WIPO", clearly shows that Respondent was fully aware

that its conduct would not be endorsed by an arbitration panel under the UDRP,

and that it was only with the Domain Name, taking advantage of Complainant’s

interest in it and hoping to make a lot of money in the transaction. Considering

all these facts, Sole Panelist deduces that it is Respondent’s common practice

to register domain names and then wait for trademark owners to approach it in

order to sell them for large sums.

6.11.10 It is the Sole Panelist’s opinion that Respondent’s behavior denotes

bad faith under the Policy paragraph 4(b)(i). Therefore, the Sole Panelist finds

that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy,

paragraph 4(a)(iii).

7. Decision

Therefore, and in consideration of the Complaint’s compliance with the formal

requirements for this domain name dispute proceeding, the factual evidence and

legal contentions that were submitted, the conclusive confirmation of the presence

of each of the elements contemplated in Paragraph 4 (a) (i), (ii), and (iii)

of the Policy, and based on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance

with the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and principles of law,

as directed by paragraphs 14 (a) and (b) and 15 (a) of the Rules, this Sole

Panelist decides:

(1) that the Domain Name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to

Complainant’s Cable Magico Marks;

(2) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the

Domain Name; and

(3) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith

by the Respondent.

Therefore, the Sole Panelist requires, pursuant to what has been provided under

Paragraphs 3 (c) and 4 (i) of the Policy, that the domain name <cablemagico.com>

be transferred to the Complainant.

Sergio Rodriguez Castillo

Sole Panelist

Dated: January 17, 2002

Footnotes:

1. It is worth mentioning that the details

of these trademark registrations did not match those of the photocopies of the

corresponding certificates. The Sole Panelist determined to use the dates of

the certificates. Complainant also mentions a certificate no. 011098, however,

since it did not provide copy of such certificate, the Sole Panelist has determined

not to include it as part of the factual background.

2. See CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide

Webs, Inc. Case No. D2000-0834.

3. See Radiodifusora del Centro Sociedad

Anonima v. Name for Sale $980/ Louis Rosenfeld trading as netEGG Internet Case

No. D2001-0634.

4. See Allocation Network GmbH v. Steve

Gregory Case No. D2000-0016.

5. In an independent visit by the Sole Panelist

to the Adult Site, it found out that, in fact, the opposite is true, since when

attempting to access the site by clicking the word "Entrar" ("Enter")

the site automatically redirects you to another web page requesting for a credit

card number.

6. See footnote 2 above.