Dell Computer Corporation v. Clinical Evaluations

WIPO Arbitration

and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE

PANEL DECISION

Dell Computer

Corporation v. Clinical Evaluations

WIPO Case

No. D2002-0423

1. The Parties

Complainant is Dell Computer

Corporation, One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682, United States of America

("Dell" or "Complainant").

Respondent is Clinical

Evaluations, 1525 Broadway, New York, New York 10010, United States of America

("Clinical Evaluations" or "Respondent").

2. Domain Names and

Registrar

The domain names in issue

are <del4me.com> and <dell4e.com> (collectively the "Domain

Names").

The registrar is Domain

Direct, Tucows, Inc., 96 Mowat Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M6K 3M1 ("Domain

Direct").

3. Procedural History

The WIPO Arbitration and

Mediation Center ("the Center") received Dell’s Complaint via e-mail

on May 2, 2002 and in hard copy on May 7, 2002. The Center acknowledged receipt

of the Complaint via e-mail on May 7, 2002. The Center forwarded a copy of the

Acknowledgment of Receipt of Complaint to the Respondent, notifying it that

there was a Complaint filed against it but that it had no duty to act at that

time. The Acknowledgment further stated that after the Center verified that

the Complaint satisfied the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution

Policy ("the Rules"), the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain

Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Supplemental Rules"), and the

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Policy"), the

Center would send Respondent an official copy of the Complaint after which Respondent

would have 20 days to respond. The letter further directed Respondent to

the Web sites containing the Rules, Supplemental Rules, and Policy.

The Center sent e-mail

to Domain Direct on May 7, 2002 requesting verification of the registration

of the Domain Names. On May 8, 2002 the Center received confirmation from Domain

Direct via e-mail that:

1) Complainant had sent

it a copy of the Complaint; 2) the Domain Names were registered with Domain

Direct; 3) Respondent was the current registrant; 4) the Policy applies to the

Domain Names; and 5) the current status of the Domain Names was Registrar Lock

(preventing changes from occurring to registration information during the administrative

proceeding). Domain Direct also confirmed the contact names, postal addresses,

e-mail addresses, and phone and facsimile numbers for the organization, administrative,

and technical contacts for the Domain Names.

On May 10, 2002, the Center

requested that Complainant amend the Complaint based on the requested remedy

transferring "all of the Dell Domains" to Complainant. (emphasis

in original) The Center noted that paragraph 4(i) of the Policy allows transfer

or cancellation only of the disputed domain names as a remedy. Complainant clarified

via e-mail on May 22, 2002 that the term "Dell Domains" applied only

to the disputed domains <del4me.com> and <dell4e.com>. The Center

accepted this clarification in lieu of amendment on May 23, 2002.

After verifying that the

Complaint complied with the formal requirements of the Rules, Supplemental Rules,

and Policy, the Center notified the registrant, the administrative, billing

and technical contacts of the Domain Names, by mail and e-mail on May 23, 2002,

of the commencement of the administrative proceeding. It notified Respondent

that Complainant had submitted a Complaint as described above. The notification

also stated that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Policy,

Rules, and Supplemental Rules and that Complainant had made the appropriate

payment. Accordingly, the administrative proceeding commenced on May 23, 2002.

The notification invited Respondent to reply by June 12, 2002 in accordance

with Paragraph 5 of the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. Furthermore, the notification

identified the consequences of default: a Panel would still decide the case

and, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Rules, the Panel could draw any

appropriate inferences from the default. The notification also informed Respondent

that Complainant elected a single panelist who would be appointed within five

days after the Response was due. If Respondent preferred a three-member panel,

Respondent could so designate, with the required payment, and would have the

option to nominate three panelists for possible inclusion on the panel. Finally,

Respondent was notified of the identity and contact information of the Case

Manager. The Center sent a copy of the notification via e-mail to Complainant.

Having received no response

to the notification by the June 12, 2002 deadline, the Center notified Complainant

and Respondent via e-mail on June 14, 2002 of Respondent’s default. The notice

stated that the Center would appoint a single panelist to comprise the Panel,

the Panel would be informed of Respondent’s default, and it would be up to the

Panel’s discretion whether to consider any late-filed Response. Finally, the

notice stated that the Center would continue to send case-related materials

to Respondent, as it deemed appropriate.

On June 17, 2002 the Center

advised Complainant and Respondent by e-mail of the identity of the undersigned

sole panelist, Michael A. Albert. In addition, the Center notified Complainant

and Respondent that the Panelist had complied with Paragraph 7 of the Rules

by submitting a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and

Independence to the Center.

Pursuant to Paragraph 11(a)

of the Rules, the language of this proceeding is English, which is the language

of the Domain Names’ Registration Agreements.

4. Factual Background;

Parties’ Contentions

a. The Trademark

Dell's Complaint alleges

that its DELL mark is a distinctive trademark federally registered in the United

States and used in over 130 countries. Dell began using the DELL mark in 1987

as a trade name, trademark, and service mark. Since then, Dell has used the

trademark DELL and variants thereof to identify itself, its goods, and its services.

(See Annex C and Annex E of the Complaint for copies of the Certificates

of Registration for some of the relevant marks.) Dell has registered more than

30 trademarks and applications involving DELL in the United States alone. (See

Annex C of the Complaint.) Dell has been using the DELL4ME mark since 1999 and

registered it in 2001. (See Annex D for a copy of the Certificate of

Registration for this mark.) Dell has invested substantial resources to promote

its mark worldwide.

Dell conducts business

on the Internet at various domains that contain DELL or DELL4ME as part of the

domain name (for example, <dell.com>, <e-dell.com>, <dell4me.com>,

and <delldimension.com>).

b. Jurisdictional Basis

Domain Direct verified

that the Policy applies to the Domain Names. Therefore, the Policy governs this

proceeding and in accordance with it, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules,

the Panel has jurisdiction to decide this dispute.

c. The Complaint

Dell asserts as follows:

▪ The registered

DELL mark has worldwide recognition.

▪ Dell creates

substantial marketplace goodwill by spending millions of dollars annually to

promote its products, services, and trademarks.

▪ Three of Dell’s

marks have attained incontestable status in the United States under 15 U.S.C.

§1065.

▪ The mark DELL

and variations of it are registered by Dell in more than 130 countries.

▪ Dell owns the

United States trademark registration for the mark DELL4ME.

▪ Dell conducts

business on the Internet through numerous domain names containing its marks

DELL and DELL4ME, including <delldirect.com>, <dellcomputers.com>,

<dell4me.com>, and <e-dell.com> among others.

▪ Dell’s on-line

activities are vital to its business; at the end of the 2000 fiscal year, Dell’s

online Internet sales accounted for nearly 50 percent of Dell’s revenue.

? In March 2002, Dell

learned that the entity "American Clinic" registered the domain name

<del4me.com>. (See Annex F of the Complaint for a copy of the relevant

WHOIS listing.) Dell sent a letter on March 12, 2002 to Vicki Taylor, the administrative

contact person listed for the domain, at the e-mail and postal addresses listed

in the WHOIS record for <del4me.com>. (See Annex H of the Complaint

for a copy of Dell’s letter.) The letter informed American Clinic that this

registration violated Dell’s trademark rights and demanded that American Clinic

transfer the domain name to Dell.

▪ There was no

response to the letter sent via e-mail. The letter sent via overnight courier

to the postal address was returned as undeliverable; there was no such entity

as "American Clinic" at the listed address. Furthermore, Dell alleges

that the postal address is fictitious, with an incorrect ZIP code. (Compare

the address listed in the WHOIS record at Annex F of the Complaint with the

United States Postal Service search result for the address at Annex G of the

Complaint.)

▪ The Respondent

acted in bad faith by providing false information when registering the domain

<del4me.com>.

▪ On March 25,

2002 the registration information for <del4me.com> was changed to list

Clinical Evaluations as the registrant, with a postal address of 1525 Broadway,

New York, New York, 10010. The administrative contact for the domain was changed

to Patrick Henderson. However, the e-mail address for the contact person did

not change.

▪ Dell alleges

that the changed registrant information also contained false information, as

the ZIP code (10010) for 1525 Broadway is incorrect. (See the United

States Postal Service search result for that address at Annex I of the Complaint.)

▪ In April 2002,

Dell learned that Clinical Evaluations had registered the domain name <dell4e.com>.

The registrant information for the <dell4e.com> domain is identical to

that for <del4me.com> except that it lists a different administrative

contact. (See Annex J of the Complaint.)

▪ Respondent has

not used the Domain Names for any legitimate purpose, but forwards HTTP requests

for them to http://www.3452.net. This Web site in turn forwards requests to

various Web sites. On March 11, 2002 the site forwarded requests to <mini-dish.com>.

(See Annex K of the Complaint for a copy of mini-dish.com’s Web page

on March 11, 2002.) On March 12, 2002 the site forwarded requests

to a search result at <TurboFind.com>. (See Annex L of the Complaint

for a copy of TurboFind.com’s Web page displaying the results of this search

on March 12, 2002). On April 26, 2002 the site forwarded requests to <Engine54.com>.

▪ Respondent registered

the Domain Names without any legitimate right or interest in using them, and

holds them in bad faith to prevent Dell from acquiring them. There is no evidence

of legitimate use of the Domain Names by Respondent, nor any preparations for

such use. Forwarding requests from the Domain Names to the Web sites of other

businesses does not constitute legitimate use.

▪ Respondent has

engaged in "typo-piracy," hoping to attract users who incorrectly

enter the domain name <dell4me.com> into their browser. This typo-piracy

constitutes bad faith on the part of Respondent.

▪ The disputed

Domain Names are confusingly similar to Dell’s marks and domain names. Respondent’s

Domain Names will confuse customers, who will believe that the Domain Names

are associated with Dell.

▪ Respondents

registered the Domain Names long after Dell’s trademarks had become well known,

and did so with knowledge of Dell’s superior, prior rights.

d. Response

Respondent provided no

Response, and the deadline for so doing expired on June 12, 2002.

Accordingly, Respondent is in default. Given Respondent’s default, the Panel

can infer that Complainant’s allegations are true where appropriate to do so.

Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0009 (February 29, 2000). Nonetheless, Complainant retains

the burden of proving the three requisite elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the

Policy.

5. Discussion and Findings

The Panel now considers

this matter on the merits in light of the Complaint (uncontested as no response

was filed), the Policy, the Rules, and other applicable authority.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy

requires that Complainant prove, with respect to the Domain Names, each of the

following:

(i) The domain name

in issue is identical or confusingly similar to Dell’s trademark in issue; and

(ii) Respondent has

no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and

(iii) The domain name

was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy

sets out four non-exclusive, but illustrative, circumstances of acts that for

purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) above would demonstrate registration and use

of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy

sets out three illustrative circumstances any one of which, if proved by Respondent,

would demonstrate Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the Domain

Names for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.

a. Effect of the Default

In this case, the Panel

finds that as a result of the default, Respondent has failed to rebut any of

the factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by

Complainant. The Panel does not, however, draw any inferences from the default

other than those that have been established or can fairly be inferred from the

facts presented to the Panel by Complainant and that, as a result of the default,

have not been rebutted by any contrary assertions or evidence.

In particular, by defaulting

and failing to respond, Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the

types of evidence set forth in Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel

might conclude that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interest in the

Domain Names, such as use or preparation to use the Domain Names prior to notice

of the dispute, being commonly known by the Domain Names, or making legitimate

noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names.

b. Complainant’s Proof

(i) Domain Name Identical

or Confusingly Similar to Trademark

The Panel finds that Respondent’s

Domain Names are confusingly similar to Dell’s trademarks. Dell has registered

the trademark "DELL4ME" in the United States (Registration No. 2,425,829;

see Annex D of the Complaint for a copy of the Certificate of Registration).

Both Domain Names are variants of DELL4ME, formed by omitting one letter from

the mark. Omitting one of the two "l"s results in <del4me.com>

and omitting the "m" results in <dell4e.com>. Including the

top-level domain ("TLD") designation <.com> in the domain name

does not affect whether the domain name is confusingly similar. See, e.g., Diageo

p.l.c. v. John Zuccarini, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0541 (August 22, 2000) (stating that the "addition of

the generic top-level-domain (gTLD) .com is without legal significance in determining

similarity"). Previous WIPO decisions have held that domain names which

differ from famous marks only by one letter may constitute "typo-squatting"

or "typo-piracy." See, e.g., Microsoft Corporation v. Microsof.com

aka Tarek Ahmed, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0548 (July 21, 2000) (holding that an "Internet

user or consumer viewing the term ‘microsof’ (or <microsof.com>) is likely

to confuse it with the term ‘microsoft’ (or <microsoft.com>)"), and

Guinness UDV North America, Inc. v. Dallas Internet Services, WIPO

Case No. D2001-1055 (December 12, 2001) (finding that the "Domain Name

consists of Complainant’s world-famous SMIRNOFF Mark minus the final ‘F’. This

mutilation of a famous mark or "typo-piracy" has been held on many

occasions to remove none of the confusing similarity such a misspelling gives

rise to"). Typo-squatting seeks to take advantage of errors by users in

typing domain names into their Web browser’s location bar. Domain names which

constitute typo-squatting are confusingly similar by definition; it is this

similarity which makes them attractive. It is not necessarily the case that

alteration of a single letter will constitute typo-squatting; there may be legitimate

trademark or domain name uses that happen coincidentally to differ from another’s

legitimate use by a single letter. This, however, is not such a case. It is

particularly persuasive that Respondent has adopted not one but two different

domain names that differ from Complainant’s by only a single letter each. It

is implausible in the extreme that this circumstance was merely coincidental

– particularly, as discussed below, absent any evidence that either of these

variants is legitimately owned marks of Respondent. Accordingly, given that

the Domain Names differ from Dell’s mark only by one letter, and in a way that

mimics typing errors by Internet users, the Panel finds that the Domain Names

are confusingly similar to Dell’s trademark.

(ii) Whether Respondent

Has Rights Or Legitimate Interest In the Domain Name.

The Panel finds that Respondent

has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names. There is no evidence

in the record that Respondent has any legitimate interests in the Domain Names.

The Web sites at the Domain Names do not advertise or sell any goods or services,

but only forward users to other sites. There is no evidence suggesting that

Respondent is preparing to use the Domain Names to promote or sell goods or

services, and such preparations seem implausible given the length of time elapsed

since Respondent registered the Domain Names. Respondent does not use the Domain

Names, or any variants of them, in its business name, and there is no evidence

it is commonly known by the Domain Names. Finally, there is no evidence that

Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names.

The fame, strength, and priority of use of Complainant’s marks, coupled with

the Domain Names’ overwhelming similarity to Complainant’s marks and corporate

name, and Respondent’s failure to advance any of the defenses provided in Paragraph

4(c) of the Policy lead this Panel to conclude that Respondent has no rights

or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.

(iii) Registration and

Use in Bad Faith

As guidance in determining

whether the bad faith requirement is met, Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets

forth four non-exclusive illustrations of fact patterns that can show registration

and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The first illustrative

scenario of bad faith is if Respondent has "registered or … 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 documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name"

(Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy). The record contains no evidence that Respondent

registered the Domain Names with intent to gain consideration greater than out-of-pocket

costs from either Complainant or a competitor of Complainant. This fact pattern

does not apply to Respondent’s conduct and hence does not establish registration

and use in bad faith.

The second illustrative

scenario of bad faith is if Respondent has "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 [Respondent has] engaged

in a pattern of such conduct" (Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy). The record

contains no evidence that Respondent registered the Domain Names to prevent

Dell from reflecting one of its marks in the Domain Names. While this scenario

could apply to <dell4e.com>, which contains the DELL mark, it could not

apply to <del4me.com>, which, although confusingly similar to the DELL4ME

mark, does not contain any of Dell’s marks. Furthermore, it is not clear that

registering two Domain Names amounts to a "pattern of such conduct."

This illustration thus does not apply to Respondent’s conduct and therefore

does not establish registration and use in bad faith.

The third illustrative

scenario of bad faith is if Respondent has "registered the domain name

primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor" (Paragraph

4(b)(iii) of the Policy). The record contains no evidence that Respondent competes

with Dell, nor that it registered the Domain Names to disrupt Dell’s business.

Further, the names "American Clinic" and "Clinical Evaluations"

do not seem to indicate an affiliation with the computer industry. As such,

this fact pattern does not apply to Respondent’s conduct and thus does not establish

registration and use in bad faith.

Finally, the fourth illustrative

scenario of bad faith is if Respondent has "intentionally attempted to

attract, for commercial gain, 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 or service on your web site or location" (Paragraph

4(b)(iii) of the Policy).

This Panel finds, first

of all, that Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to its Web site,

which it then forwarded to other sites, by using Domain Names confusingly similar

to Dell’s Web site <dell4me.com> and Dell’s marks DELL and DELL4ME. These

Domain Names are unrelated to Respondent’s business names and do not appear

to be related to its field of commerce. As discussed in Paragraph 5(b)(i) above,

Respondent has engaged in typo-squatting by registering domain names that differ

from a well-known domain name only in minor ways that mimic common typing errors

by Internet users. This conduct constitutes bad faith conduct in itself. See,

e.g., Neuberger Berman Inc. v. Alfred Jacobsen, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0323 (June 12, 2000) (describing "typo-piracy"

whereby bad faith operators deliberately misspell a famous domain name trademark

in hopes of luring search engines to their site in conjunction with searches

for the famous name website"); Briefing.com Inc v. Cost Net Domain Manager,

WIPO

Case No. D2001-0970 (September 12, 2001) (finding "Respondent has demonstrated

bad faith by engaging in ‘typo-piracy’ to confuse Internet users and draw them

away from Complainant’s web site"); and Estée Lauder Inc. v.

estelauder.com, estelauder.net and Jeff Hanna, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0869 (September 25, 2000) (stating that the panel’s "findings

that the Respondent intentionally registered domain names with a slight, but

knowingly confusing, spelling difference are pertinent to determining whether

Respondent has acted in good faith.") The Panel finds that Respondent has

intentionally attempted to attract users to its site in bad faith through the

use of confusingly similar domain names.

Secondly, the Panel further

finds that Respondent did so for commercial gain. This aspect of the scenario

is a closer question, as Respondent does not sell or advertise its own goods

or services on the site. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record of

a contractual or other business relationship between Respondent and the owners

of the sites to which Respondent’s site forwards users (for example, <mini-dish.com>,

<TurboFind.com>, and <Engine54.com>). However, the factual record

makes clear that Respondent deliberately forwarded users to at least two commercial

sites. <Mini-dish.com> attempts to sell DIRECTV Satellite Systems to consumers,

and <TurboFind.com> lists franchise opportunities such as "Mini-ATMs"

and a "virtual marketplace." See Annexes K and L of the Complaint.

Respondent clearly controls the destination web sites to which the Domain Names

are being forwarded; indeed, it altered the destination site three times in

two months. Such forwarding in itself can constitute bad faith use. See

Edmunds.com, Inc. v. WWWEDMUNDS.com and DMUNDS.com, WIPO

Case No. D2001-0937 (August 31, 2001) (finding that "the fact that

users are automatically redirected to another site… is evidence of bad faith

under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy"). Since Respondent is in default

and has not contested any of Complainant’s factual allegations, these facts

are taken as established. See Paragraphs 4(d) and 5(a) above. Given Respondent’s

control over which sites it forwarded requests to, and the commercial nature

of the sites it chose, the Panel infers that Respondent did so for commercial

gain. Again, since Respondent is in default, the Panel may draw such inferences

from the facts where appropriate. See Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, and Paragraph

5(a) above. The Panel concludes that Respondent has intentionally attracted

users to its site for commercial gain.

Third, the Panel finds

that Registrant created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as

to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its site or the sites

to which it forwarded users. Respondent’s Domain Names are confusingly similar

to Complainant’s marks, and Respondent has engaged in typo-squatting. See Paragraph

5(b)(i) above. Internet users seeking to reach one of Complainant’s web sites

might well be confused as to whether Complainant was associated with, sponsored,

or endorsed the destination sites. Accordingly, the Panel finds Registrant created

a likelihood of confusion by users with Complainant’s marks as to the source,

sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the destination sites.

Finally, the Panel also

finds that Respondent registered and uses the domain name <del4me.com>

in bad faith by providing incorrect contact information for that domain name.

Paragraph 2 of the Policy states that by "applying to register a domain

name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you [the

registrant] hereby represent and warrant to us that… the statements that you

made in your Registration Agreement are complete and accurate." The contact

information provided pursuant to Respondent’s Registration Agreement was not

complete and accurate. Complainant alleges that its attempt to deliver a copy

of the Complaint to Respondent failed because the postal address listed in the

WHOIS information for <del4me.com> was not correct. This contact address

derives from the registration information. The Panel assumes that Complainant’s

statement is correct based on Respondent’s failure to offer any alternative

facts or explanation. See Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Falsifying contact

information constitutes bad faith registration and use. See, e.g., World

Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Matthew Bessette, WIPO

Case No. D2000-0256 (June 7, 2000). The integrity and effectiveness of the

Policy, and of its dispute resolution mechanism, depend on registrants providing

honest, complete, and accurate contact information. Failure to do so constitutes

bad faith registration and use. Hence, the Panel finds that Respondent registered

and used the domain name <del4me.com> in bad faith.

The record contains insufficient

evidence to determine whether Respondent provided inaccurate information for

the <dell4e.com> domain name. While Complainant alleges that the postal

ZIP code for Clinical Evaluations’ mailing address is incorrect, there is no

evidence in the record of failed deliveries to the Clinical Evaluations address

at 1525 Broadway. As such, the Panel cannot conclude that the information is

sufficiently inaccurate or incomplete to impair attempts to contact Respondent.

The Panel does not find bad faith registration or use based on the WHOIS contact

information provided for the <dell4e.com> domain name.

Based on Respondent’s intentional

attempts to attract users to its site for commercial gain through forwarding

requests and the likelihood of confusion from its confusingly similar Domain

Names, and based on Respondent’s provision of incorrect contact information

for the <del4me.com> domain name, the Panel finds that there is sufficient

evidence to support Complainant’s allegation that Respondent has registered

and used the Domain Names in bad faith.

6. Decision

In light of the above findings

and analysis, the Panel decides that Dell has met its burden of proving: (1)

the Domain Names are confusingly similar to marks belonging to Complainant;

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names; and

(3) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used by Respondent in

bad faith.

Accordingly, pursuant to

Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel requires

that registration of the <dell4e.com> and <del4me.com> domain names

be transferred to Dell.

Michael

A. Albert

Sole Panelist

Dated: June

30, 2002

More cases by this complainant

• Dell Computer Corporation v. John Barry, d/b/a High Traffic Pro-Life Domains only $999/Pro-Life Domains Rock Bottom Prices — D2003-0282 · supportatdell.com, wwwwdell.com · Transfer · 06 Jun 2003
• Dell Computer Corporation — D2002-1028 · Terminated
• Dell Computer Corporation v. RaveClub Berlin — D2002-0601 · dellsuport.com · Transfer · 12 Aug 2002
• Dell Computer Corporation — D2002-0422 · Terminated
• Dell Computer Corporation v. Diabetes Education Long Life-DELL (Trademark) — D2002-0363 · bancondell.com, dellaboutus.com, dellafrica.com · Transfer · 05 Jul 2002
• Dell Computer Corporation — D2001-1334 · Terminated