WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Corbis Corporation v. Kentech, Inc. a.k.a. Helois Lab a.k.a. Orion Web a.k.a. Titan Net a.k.a. Panda Ventures a.k.a. Spiral Matrix
Case No. D2006-0924
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Corbis Corporation, Washington, United States of America, represented by Preston Gates & Ellis, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Spiral Matrix a.k.a. Kentech, Inc. a.k.a. Helois Lab a.k.a. Orion Web a.k.a. Titan Net a.k.a. Panda Ventures, Eldoret, Kenya.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names <corbisimages.org>, <corbisphoto.com>, <corbisstock.com> (collectively the “Domain Names”), are registered with Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com. (“the Registrar”)
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 20, 2006. On July 23, 2006, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On July 24, 2006, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative and technical contacts for the Domain Names. The Center verified that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 2, 2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 22, 2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 24, 2006.
The Center appointed Warwick Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 2006. 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.
In view of the fact that Respondent has not filed a Response, the Panel has checked whether the Center has discharged its responsibility to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice of the Complaint to the Respondent. The courier pack containing the Complaint and annexures appears to have been correctly addressed, but it was returned to the Center with the advice that the consignee was unknown at that address. Similarly, the attempted transmission of the Complaint to the email addresses “billing@kenyatech.com” and “info@kenyatech.com” appears to have been unsuccessful. However, the emails addressed to the relevant “postmaster” addresses do appear to have been transmitted successfully, and that is sufficient proof that the Respondent has had actual notice of the Complaint. In any event the Panel is satisfied that the Center has taken all of the communication measures required of it under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant
The Complainant was founded in Seattle, United States of America, in 1989. It is a global provider of images and related services, to creative and editorial business users. According to the Complaint, the Complainant is the second largest provider of such services in the world, and has an estimated market share of 10%.
The Complainant has offices in numerous cities in the United States, Europe, and Asia. In countries where it does not have a physical presence, the Complainant has relationships with international representatives, to license its images and image-related services locally. The Complainant is currently represented by approximately 170 representatives or resellers in 52 countries worldwide, including several in Africa and one that specifically covers Kenya, where the Respondent appears to be domiciled.
The Complainant says that it is an industry-leading visual solutions provider, whose contemporary and archival photography, fine art, illustrations, cartoons and footage are seen in many countries every day in a variety of roles. It has one of the largest collections of historical and editorial photographs in the world, and that collection enables providers of news and commentary to present informative and critical news to the public.
The Complainant operates a website at “www.corbis.com”, and it says that most of its annual revenues (in excess of US$200 million) come directly from internet commerce activity through the “www.corbis.com” website. The website at “www.corbis.com” receives more than 600 million visitors per year. Visitors to the site can license copyright and secure other third party rights in photography, motion images, illustration and fine art images, and enquire about a range of other services offered by the Complainant.
The Complainant has registered more than 100 domain names containing the word “corbis”.
The Complainant’s CORBIS Trademark
The Complaint is the registered proprietor of the word mark CORBIS (“the Trademark”) in the United States of America, in international class 9, in respect of the following goods:
“Interactive multimedia products, namely computer software and CD-ROM disks that provide users with the capability to access, view, download and store still and motion video images, sound and text, and user manuals sold as a unit.”
The registration has effect from September 29, 1994. The printout from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which was provided with the Complaint, shows a first use in commerce date of January 27, 1995.
The Complainant has also produced evidence that it has been the registered proprietor of the Trademark in the United States in international classes 35 and 42, with effect from September 29, 1994. The international class 35 registration is for:
“Licensing of digital data, namely still images, moving images, audio and text, for use in the fields of electronic and print publishing, graphic design, advertising and interactive multimedia.”
The international class 42 registration is for:
“Providing access to an on-line database of still images, moving images, audio and text, for use in the fields of entertainment, education, electronic and print publishing, graphic design, advertising and interactive multimedia.”
In addition, the Complaint states that the Trademark has either been registered or has a pending registration in a total of 36 other territories. It is not necessary to mention them all, but the printout shows that the Trademark has been registered in China, the Benelux countries, Canada, Brazil, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Japan. There is also a Community Trade Mark registration.
The Complainant has provided a sworn affidavit from its General Counsel and Senior Vice President – Legal, Mr. James Mitchell. In his affidavit, Mr. Mitchell explains that the Trademark is an “arbitrary”, or “fanciful” term, being an arcane reference to the Latin word “corbis”, meaning a “basket”. He deposes to his belief that “corbis” is not known in the English language other than as the mark used by the Complainant.
Mr. Mitchell says that the Trademark has achieved dominant customer recognition. A Google search on the term “corbis” combined with the term “photo”, returned nearly 4,000,000 results, including a significant number which referred to the Trademark. Mr. Mitchell’s affidavit refers to the Complainant’s substantial investment in advertising associated with the Trademark since 1996.
The Respondent and the Domain Names
The evidence shows that the Respondent registered <corbisstock.com> and <corbisphoto.com>, on March 21, 2002. On February 8, 2006, the Respondent registered <corbisimages.org>.
According to the Complaint, the Respondent has at times been using the Domain Names to point to web pages featuring stock photo-related links, goods and services. The Complainant says at page 12 of the Complaint: “These pages offer goods and services identical to those which Complainant offers at its own website corbis.com, and provide direct links to Corbis’ primary competitor, Getty Images, as well as other stock photography companies”.
At annex H to the Complaint, the Complainant has produced copies of pages downloaded from websites operated at each of the Domain Names. It is not clear when these web pages were downloaded, but in all cases the websites appear to be portal sites consisting primarily of click-through links to other sites or pages identified under particular product categories. For example, the pages produced from the website at “www.corbisimages.org” consist of one page containing a number of “Recommended Categories”, and “Favorite Categories”, with a list of expressions on the left hand side under a heading “Popular Searches”, and three pages of “sponsored links”. Across the top of the “Recommended/Favorite Categories” page, are a number of headings (which appear to be click-through links to other pages at the website) entitled “CORBIS IMAGES, “PHOTODISC”, “IMAGE”, “IMAGE PROCESSING”, and “PHOTOGRAPHY”.
Under the heading “Recommended Categories” on the “www.corbisimages.org” web page, the click-through categories include: “Corbis Images”, “Image Processing”, “Graphics”, “Photography”, “Image Manipulation”, “Video”, and “Image Library”. The click-through links under the heading “Favorite Categories”, include categories listed under the subheadings “Travel”, “Financial Planning”, “E-Commerce”, “Lifestyle”, “Real Estate”, and “Automobiles”. None of the links under the “Favorite Categories” heading appear to have any particular relevance to the licensing of images.
The “Popular Searches” links on the “www.corbisimages.org” web page do appear to be related to the general field of image production and licensing. For example, topics listed underneath the “Popular Searches” heading include “Corbis Images”, “Image Processing”, “Image Viewer”, “Image Hosting”, and “Graphics”. The “Popular Searches” also prominently include categories which incorporate the use of the word “stock” – for example, “Stock Photography”, “Stock Photos”, “Stock Images”, and “Stock”.
The section of the website at “www.corbisimages.org” containing sponsored links to other sites, contains a link to the official website of Getty Images, which appears to be the Complainant’s major competitor. A number of the other sponsored links are to sites where the site visitor can purchase photographs, graphics, or similar items. One sponsored link is to the website at “www.fotolia.com”. The click-on link is: “Fotolia Stock Imaging – 600+ Photos”. There is also a sponsored link to the Complainant’s own website at “www.corbis.com”.
The Complainant produced one page from the website at “www.corbisphoto.com”. The page contains a statement that the website, “is under construction”. However, there are numerous click-through categories, most of which appear to be related to photography and images – e.g. “Photography”, “Stock Photos”, “Digital Photo”, “Gallery”, “Stock”, “Photo Restoration”, “Imaging”, and “Corbis Stock Photography”.
The Complainant also produced one page from the website at “www.corbisstock.com”. Again, the page states that the website “is under construction”. Like the page from the website at “www.corbisphoto.com”, the page contains numerous click-through categories which appear to be focused on photography and images – e.g. “Pictures Stock”, “Stock Photography Agency”, “Stock Photography”, “Digital Stock Photography”, “Stock Photos”, and “Corbis Images”.
The Complainant says that it believes that the Respondent is a domain-registration entity, which is not commonly known by any of the Domain Names.
Again according to the Complaint, the Respondent has featured as a respondent in numerous complaints under the Policy, with at least 13 National Arbitration Forum or WIPO UDRP decisions resolved against the Respondent in 2006 alone. The Complainant says that the Respondent failed to file a response in any of those cases.
Pre-commencement Communications between the Parties
On March 2, 2006, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent. The letter was returned by the courier company as “undeliverable”, on or about March 18, 2006.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complaint’s contentions may be summarized as follows:
1. Domain Names Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Trademark
1.1 The Complainant has rights in the Trademark, by virtue of the United States of America registrations and the registrations it holds in other countries around the world.
1.2 The Complainant also has rights in the Trademark by virtue of its widespread use of the Trademark and its extensive advertising promotion of the Trademark.
1.3 The Trademark is “fanciful”, and is inherently distinctive.
1.4 The Domain Names <corbistock.com> and <corbisphoto.com> are confusingly similar to the Trademark in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. The Domain Name <corbisimages.org> is also confusingly similar to the Trademark in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.
1.5 The Domain Names all contain additions to the Trademark which are obvious connectors to the Complainant’s products. “Corbis” is the root word of each of the Domain Names, and is identical to the Trademark. In each instance, the Respondent has failed to create a new or different mark in which the Respondent has independent rights.
1.6 There is an actual likelihood of confusion between the Domain Names and the Trademark, and the Respondent is likely to be deriving commercial benefit from that confusion.
2. Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate Interests in respect of the Domain Names
2.1 The Respondent has not made any legitimate use of the Domain Names, nor has the Respondent made any demonstrable preparations to legitimately use the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The use of the Domain Names to provide links to other websites for the Respondent’s commercial benefit, does not generate rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names (citing The Black & Decker Corporation v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629; National Arbitration Forum decision dated June 24, 2002).
2.2 The Respondent is not commonly known by any of the Domain Names, and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the Domain Names. As the Domain Names consist only of the Trademark with the addition of the descriptive suffixes “stock”, “photo”, and “images”, the Domain Names do not create separate and distinct trade names or trademarks by which the Respondent could be commonly known.
3. The Domain Names were registered and are being used in Bad Faith
3.1 The Respondent has registered the Domain Names in order to prevent the Complainant as the owner of the Trademark from reflecting the Trademark in a corresponding domain name, and the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct.
3.2 The Complainant’s rights in the Trademark properly extend to each of the Domain Names. The Respondent’s registrations of these variations of the Trademark prevent the Complainant from expressing the Trademark in the Domain Names.
3.3 No fewer than 13 National Arbitration Forum and WIPO UDRP decisions have been resolved against the Respondent in 2006 alone. In each of the complaints, which were comparable to the present Complaint, the respondent failed to respond in any manner.
3.4 For the reasons set out in subparagraphs 3.1 – 3.3 above, the Respondent has been guilty of bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.
3.5 The Respondent has used the Domain Names in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites or locations to which the Domain Names resolve. The Respondent directs users looking for the Complainant’s site at “www.corbis.com”, to the web sites to which the Domain Names resolve. Once there, users are confused and assumed that the sites are offered by or related to the Complainant. They may then follow links to stock photography services-related websites operated by the Complainant’s competitors. The Respondent has intentionally created this likelihood of confusion for its own commercial gain, and has acted in bad faith in the manner described at paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not file any Response to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. General Principles under the Policy and the Rules
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant carries the burden of proving:
(i) That the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) That the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Those circumstances are:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the 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 [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) [the 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 [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website 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 [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out a number of circumstances, again without limitation, which may be effective for a respondent to demonstrate that it has rights to, or legitimate interests in, the disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Those circumstances are:
(i) Before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, use by [the respondent] 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) Where [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Where [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial 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.
Paragraph 5(e) of the Rules provides that if the Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of special circumstances, the Panel is to decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that:
“(b) If a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under these Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.”
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the Trademark. The Complainant’s United States registrations are sufficient proof of that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, and there is no need to consider the extent of the Complainant’s use of the Trademark, or its reputation or distinctiveness, under this paragraph of the Policy. The only issue under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is whether the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trademark.
The Domain Names are not identical to the Trademark – the addition of the words “photo”, “stock”, and “images” remove any possibility of a finding that the Domain Names are identical to the Trademark. However, the Panel is quite satisfied that they are confusingly similar.
The words “photo”, “stock”, and “images”, are all descriptive or generic expressions, which the Respondent has linked with the word “corbis” to form the Domain Names. The word “corbis” itself is a fanciful word, which, although derived from the ancient Latin language (in which its meaning was “basket”), is no longer used. In the absence of any response from the Respondent, the Panel accepts the uncontradicted evidence of the Complainant that the only meaning the expression “Corbis” would have for internet users today, would be (for those who were aware of the Complainant or the Trademark) as a reference to the Complainant or the Trademark.
In those circumstances, “corbis” is clearly the distinctive part of the Domain Names, and that part is of course identical to the Trademark. The addition of the descriptive words “stock”, “photos”, and images, does nothing to dispel the confusing similarity.
Numerous WIPO UDRP Panels have found that a domain name that wholly incorporates the complainant’s registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy – see, for example, Nokia Group. v. Mr. Giannattasio Mario, WIPO Case No. D2002-0782, and the reference to that case in the more recent decision of a three-member WIPO Panel in The Ritz Hotel, Limited v. Damir Kruzicevic, WIPO Case No. D2005-1137.
As in the Ritz Hotel case, the addition of the words “photo”, “stock”, and “images” serves, if anything, to increase the likelihood of confusion, because those words are descriptive of the products supplied by the Complainant under the Trademark. In the Ritz Hotel case (where the Panel was dealing with a complaint by the owner of the Ritz Hotel in Paris, and the at-issue domain name was ritz-hotel.com), the Panel said:
“Indeed, the addition of the word “hotel” tends, if anything, to increase the likelihood of confusion, because the word is descriptive of the business operated by the Complainant under the RITZ mark: see in that regard ACOR, Société Anonyme a Directoire et Conseil de Surveillance v. SEOCHO; WIPO Case No. D2002-0517 (the case referred to by the Complainant dealing with the domain name <ibishotels.com>). The Panel in that case said: “The addition of this word “hotels” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s well known mark, but indeed compounds the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark” (which was the mark IBIS registered in respect of hotels and restaurants). See also Marie Claire Album S.A. v. Buy This Domain; WIPO Case No. D2002-0677, where the Panel said: “The domain name at stake is made up of the combined words composing the trademark of the Complainant followed by the descriptive addition “magazine”. This descriptive term actually refers directly to the original and main object identified by the trademark, i.e. the Marie Claire magazine. Instead of being a mere addition without significance from the perspective of this comparison, this addition reinforces the likelihood of confusion with the trademark held by the Complainant.”
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes, without difficulty, that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trademark (in which the Complainant has rights).
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In Cassava Enterprises Limited, Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Limited v. Victor Chandler International Limited, WIPO Case No. D2004-0753, the Panel said:
“Although the Policy requires that the complainants must prove each of the elements in paragraph 4(a), it is often observed that difficulties are posed for a complainant in proving a negative, namely that the Respondent does not enjoy some right or legitimate interest in the domain at issue. The wording of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy appears to envisage the Respondent taking steps to demonstrate its right or interest, and it is generally accepted that, once a complainant has proved that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark and that it has not authorized the respondent to use the domain name, a finding of “no legitimate right or interest” should normally follow if the respondent does not advance any plausible “right or legitimate interest” case. If the respondent does put forward such a case, the Panel decides the issue on the basis of all of the evidence, with the complainant carrying the ultimate burden of proof.”
In this case, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Domain Name. In the absence of any Response, those facts, coupled with the Panel’s findings on the question of bad faith (see section 6D of this decision, below), are sufficient proof of the matters required to be proved under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
There is evidence of some use having been made of the Domain Names, in the sense that they have been pointed to the websites from which extracts were produced at Annex H to the Complaint. But, for the reasons set out in Section 6C of this decision, any such use has been neither “bona fide” nor “fair” or “legitimate” within the meaning of those expressions as used in paragraph 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy. No other possible basis for a claim to a right or legitimate interest is apparent from the evidence.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Names.
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel also finds this part of the Complaint proved. The Panel has reached that conclusion for the following reasons:
(i) The Domain Names are all confusingly similar to the Trademark.
(ii) The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Trademark or any expression similar to the Trademark, as a domain name or otherwise, and the Respondent has not claimed any right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
(iii) Although the Respondent does not appear to be a United States-based entity, the Panel infers (in the absence of any statement from the Respondent to the contrary) that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant and the Trademark when it registered each of the Domain Names. The word “Corbis” is not a word in common use in the English language. It is a word taken from ancient Latin, and only a very small proportion of people would be aware of that fact. It is as close to a “made-up” or invented word as one might reasonably expect to get without actually coining or “inventing” a completely new expression. The chances of someone independently thinking up the expression “Corbis” for use in a domain name, without knowledge of or reference to the Complainant or the Trademark, must be extremely remote.
(iv) The contents of the websites to which the Domain Names resolve, are substantially concerned with photography, images, picture stock etc, all of which are products supplied by the Complainant.
(v) The website at “www.corbisimages.org” contains “sponsored links” not merely to the Complainant’s competitors, but also to the Complainant itself.
(vi) Having regard to the circumstances described in subparagraphs (i) to (v) above, the inference is irresistible that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and/or the Trademark when it registered each of the Domain Names.
(vii) In the absence of any response, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has registered the Domain Names for the express purpose of trading off the Complainant’s reputation in the Trademark. Any person seeing a Domain Name consisting of the unusual expression “corbis” coupled with one or other of the words “photo”, “stock”, or “images”, would understandably and quite reasonably believe that the domain name was operated or associated in some way with the Corbis company which markets photos, images, and picture stock through its online website at “www.corbis.com”. In the absence of any response, the Panel infers that the Respondent must have intended that internet users seeing one of the Domain Names would be misled or confused in that way.
(viii) The click-through links all suggest that the websites to which the Domain Names resolve are commercial operations, which the website owner would only be running for commercial gain.
(ix) The Respondent’s use of a number of aliases, and the fact that it appears to be unknown at the address it provided to the Registrar when it registered the Domain Names, are other strong indicators of bad faith registration and use.
(x) In the Panel’s view, the circumstances fall squarely within the example of bad faith registration and use described at paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, namely a use of the Domain Names with the intention of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the websites to which the Domain Names resolve, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites to which the Domain Names resolve.
It is not necessary to consider the Complainant’s other submissions under the “registered and used in bad faith” heading (and in particular the submission that the Domain Names were registered to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the Trademark in a corresponding domain name, and that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct). There is sufficient independent evidence of bad faith registration and use that the Panel does not need to examine the NAF and WIPO decisions to which the Respondent has been a party, and to determine (by reference to those decisions and the evidence as a whole) whether or not a pattern of abusive registration has been established.
For the foregoing reasons, the Complainant has succeeded in proving bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, and the Domain Names must be transferred to the Complainant.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Names, <corbisimages.org>, <corbisphoto.com> and <corbisstock.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Warwick Smith
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 15, 2006