The Complainant is General Motors LLC of Detroit, Michigan, United States of America, represented by Abelman Frayne & Schwab, United States of America.
The Respondent is Shenzhen Belding Golf Planning Co.,ltd, of Shenzhen, Guangdong, the People's Republic of China, represented by 丁玉民, the People's Republic of China.
The disputed domain name <cadillacgolf.com> is registered with Xiamen eName Network Technology Corporation Limited dba eName Corp.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the ”Center”) on December 23, 2009. On December 28, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to Xiamen eName Network Technology Corporation Limited dba eName Corp. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 30, 2009, Xiamen eName Network Technology Corporation Limited dba eName Corp transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent's contact details. On January 4, 2010, the Center transmitted an email to the parties regarding the language of the proceeding in both Chinese and English language. On January 5, 2010, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of proceeding. On January 7, 2010, the Respondent sent an email to the Center requesting that Chinese be the language of the proceeding. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the ”Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 proceeding commenced on January 6, 2010. On the same day, the Center informed the parties as follows:
“Given the provided submissions and circumstances of this case, the Center has decided to:
1) accept the Complaint as filed in English;
2) accept a Response in either English or Chinese;
3) appoint a Panel familiar with both languages mentioned above, if available.
In accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel has the authority to determine the language of the proceeding.”
In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for the Response was January 26, 2010. The Response was filed with the Center on January 26, 2010.
The Center appointed Sebastian Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on January 28, 2010. 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.
The Complainant is a company incorporated in the United States of America and the owner of registrations for the trade mark CADILLAC in numerous jurisdictions worldwide, including in the People's Republic of China, where the Respondent is based (“the Trade Mark”).
The Respondent is a company incorporated in China.
The disputed domain name <cadillacgolf.com> was registered on March 3, 2009.
The following facts are alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint.
The Complainant is world-renowned as an automotive manufacturing company and is among the world's largest automakers. The Complainant is the successor in interest to all trade marks owned by General Motors Corporation which was founded in 1908. The Complainant today employs 244,500 people in every major region of the world, and sells and services vehicles in approximately 140 countries. With global headquarters in Detroit, the Complainant manufactures cars and trucks in 34 countries. The Complainant's largest national market is the United States, followed by China, Brazil, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, the Russian Federation and Germany. In 2008, General Motors sold 8.35 million cars and trucks globally under the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Hummer, Opel and Pontiac.
The Trade Mark is synonymous with style, performance, innovation and luxury in the automotive industry, and is one of the most well-known trade marks in the world.
The Complainant owns over 500 trade mark registrations for the Trade Mark or trade marks containing the word CADILLAC worldwide, including over 50 registrations and pending applications in China.
In the Chinese and English languages, the word CADILLAC is a coined or invented word and does not have any meaning other than as the Trade Mark.
The Complainant conducts business on the Internet and the Trade Mark has a strong Internet presence. For example, the Complainant operates a website at “www.cadillac.com” featuring new models, dealer information, current offers, photo galleries, merchandise, Cadillac media, enthusiast sites, History & Heritage, Awards & Accolades and Events. The Complainant advertises its Cadillac videos on YOUTUBE, displays Cadillac photos on FLICKR, and posts Cadillac news updates and events on TWITTER, including the dates of auto shows where Cadillac vehicles will be displayed. In addition, consumers can become a fan of Cadillac on Facebook, and view the official Cadillac blog which features product news, announcements and commentary from the designers, engineers and team members that bring Cadillac vehicles to life.
The Complainant has capitalised on the strength of the Trade Mark and uses the Trade Mark through its licensees on a wide variety of products including but not limited to golf clubs, golf umbrella, golf bags, golf ball leather pouches, golf balls, golf clubs, automobiles, eyeglasses, optical frames, eyewear cases, eyewear chains, watches, clocks, watchbands, cuff links, tie tack pins, stick pins, playing cards, pens, pocket diaries, note pads, leather briefcases, leather portfolios, credit card cases, badge holders, beds, chairs, clamps, desk ornaments, jewelry boxes, non-metal key chains, non-metal key fobs, non-metal key holders, non-metal key rings, non-metal key tags, non-metal license plates, mirrors, non-metal money clips, key fobs made of silver, name badges, nameplates, novelty buttons, picture frames, pillows, blankets, plaques, plastic flags, plastic storage bins, seat cushions and stools, ceramic mugs, crystal decanters, beverage glasses, carafes, towels, flags, hats, shirts, T-shirts, sweatshirts, sweatpants, shorts, knit shirts, sweaters, blazers, headbands, wristbands, sun visors, hats, rain suits, jackets, ties, warm-up suits, belt buckles, carpeting and carpeting for automobiles, lighters for cigars and cigarettes, electronic devices, downloaded music players, electronic organizers, electronic locating devices, global positioning systems, cellular telephones, calculators and binoculars.
The Complainant expends enormous efforts on advertising and promotion of its vehicles. For the nine month period from January through September, 2003, the Complainant's predecessor General Motors Corporation spent in excess of USD1.7 billion. For the same period in 2004, the Complainant's predecessor spent in excess of USD1.9 billion. During NBC telecasts of the 2004 Olympics, the Complainant's predecessor purchased in excess of US$100,000,000 of advertising time.
The Trade Mark is associated not only with automobiles but with a lifestyle and culture created by the Cadillac brand through extensive advertising and promotional activities. The Trade Mark has been disseminated through all types of advertising media such as television programming, radio broadcasting and print media, as well as online advertising and promotions.
As a result of long, continuous and extensive use, advertising and promotion of the Trade Mark, and the commercial success of CADILLAC automobiles and products, the Trade Mark has developed an enviable cachet, image and reputation and is one of the most well-known trade marks in the automotive industry and to consumers throughout the world. The goodwill associated with the Trade Mark is of inestimable value to General Motors.
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety and the word “golf”. When a well-known and invented mark is combined with a common noun or adjective, that combination constitutes a domain name which is confusingly similar to an invented and world-famous mark such as CADILLAC.
The addition of the word “golf” in the disputed domain name does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Trade Mark. This is because:
a. The Trade Mark is so well-known to consumers that consumers will assume that a domain name containing the word “cadillac” is that of or associated with the Complainant;
b. The addition of the word “golf” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Trade Mark. This is because the Complainant offers for sale on its website golf equipment bearing the Trade Mark;
c. The Complainant's predecessor has been a major sponsor of many golf tournaments. Due to this, the Complainant and the Trade Mark have a strong association with golf;
d. The word CADILLAC appears at the beginning of the disputed domain name and is the primary element of the disputed domain name.
The addition of a common term to a strong trade mark is not sufficient to negate a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
The Respondent has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Trade Mark in a domain name or in any other manner from the Complainant, nor has the Complainant acquiesced in any way to such use or application of the Trade Mark by the Respondent. At no time did the Respondent have authorisation from the Complainant to register the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent did not use the Trade Mark or any mark containing CADILLAC as a trade mark, company name, business or trade name. The Respondent is not otherwise known in reference to CADILLAC or CADILLAC GOLF. The Respondent is also known as Belding Golf (China) Ltd. because the contact page provided on the website “www.cadillacgolf.com” contains an email address for “Cadillac golf” and “Belding golf”. Moreover, when conducting a Google search for <cadillacgolf.com>, “www.beldinggolf.com” is listed in the Google search results. The home page of “www.beldinggolf.com” contains advertisements for “Belding”, “Lexus Golf”, “Cadillac Golf” and “Converse Golf”. These advertisements, once clicked on, automatically lead consumers to “www.cadillacgolf.com”.
Prior to commencing this UDRP proceeding, the Complainant's attorney sent a warning letter to the Respondent on April 2, 2009.
The disputed domain name is used in relation to the offering of goods not authorised by the Complainant. The Respondent's website “www.cadillacgolf.com” (“the Website”) falsely suggests its goods are those of the Complainant by the following:
a. The Website offers for sale merchandise, including but not limited to golf equipment, bearing the Trade Mark;
b. The Website depicts images of Cadillac motor vehicles and the Cadillac Emblem Logo;
c. The information and goods offered on the Website are portrayed to be authorised goods of the Complainant;
In view of the above, the Respondent has deliberately attempted to deceive visitors to the Website that the services offered on the Website are those of the Complainant.
The Trade Mark is well-known to consumers in the United States and China. In view of the above, it may be inferred that at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the Respondent was aware of the Complainants' trade mark rights in respect of the Trade Mark.
Based upon the numerous trademark registrations for the Trade Mark and the fame, goodwill and notoriety associated with the Trade Mark, it is impossible to conceive of a circumstance in which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name without creating a false impression of association with Complainant.
The Complainant's predecessor adopted and used the Trade Mark for over 100 years and such adoption and use precedes the registration date of the disputed domain name. It can be inferred that the Respondent had notice of the Trade Mark at the time when it registered the disputed domain name.
CADILLAC is a distinctive trade mark. In the Chinese and English languages, the word CADILLAC is a coined or invented word, and does not have any meaning other than as a reference to the Complainant and the Complainant's goods. In view of this, it can be inferred that the disputed domain name would not have been registered but for the renown of the Trade Mark. This gives rise to the presumption that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith
Because of the famous and distinctive nature of the Trade Mark, the Respondent is likely to have had constructive notice as to the existence of the Trade Mark at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Such constructive notice suggests that the Respondent acted with opportunistic bad faith in registering the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has acted in bad faith by registering the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant.
In using the disputed domain name, and by offering for sale goods that are sold by the Complainant under the Trade Mark, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark. As such, it may be inferred that the Respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain name to trade off the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant.
In using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to create a false association, sponsorship or endorsement with or by the Complainant by:
a. Offering for sale merchandise, including but not limited to golf equipment, bearing the Trade Mark, which is also sold by the Complainant;
b. Depicting images of Cadillac motor vehicles and the Cadillac Emblem Logo on the Website; and
c. Portraying the goods offered on the Website as authorised goods of the Complainant.
The registration of a domain name containing a well-known trade mark by a person with no connection to that trade mark amounts to “opportunistic bad faith”.
In view of the foregoing, the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The following facts are alleged by the Respondent in the Response.
The Respondent was founded in China in 2007 and its business is dedicated to the development of golf products. The Respondent's BELDING trade mark is a well-known trade mark in the United States (USA), and the Respondent's other trade marks include CADILLAC GOLF, LEXUS GOLF, BELDING GOLF and CONVERSE GOLF. The Respondent has already applied for registration of its CADILLAC GOLF trade mark in China.
Cadillac is the name of a person (Antoine de la Mothe, 1657-1730, French Governor and founder of Detroit). The Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name in order to reflect its CADILLAC GOLF trade mark.
Whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
In China, the Trade Mark is only registered and used by the Complainant in respect of automobiles and automobile manufacturing. It is not registered or used in China in respect of golf-related products. The Complainant's international Class 28 registration for the Trade Mark does not cover golf-related products.
The Respondent has applied for registration of its trade mark CADILLAC SNAKE EYES in China in Class 28 in respect of golf-related accessories and expects this application to proceed to registration.
Cadillac is the name of a person and is not a distinctive and proprietary English word.
The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to advertise and promote its goods and services and has invested heavily in production sites. The disputed domain name comprises the name of the French explorer Cadillac and the word “golf” and the Complainant does not have any proprietary rights in respect of these words. Further, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in respect of golfing products and accessories, whereas the Complainant uses the Trade Mark in respect of automobile products and accessories.
Whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
The Respondent's CADILLAC GOLF trade mark is well-known in China and has been in use since April 2007. In September 2007 the Respondent filed applications for registration of its CADILLAC SNAKE EYES trade mark in Class 28 in China and it expects this mark to proceed to registration.
The Respondent has sponsored many golf shows and exhibitions in China using its CADILLAC GOLF trade mark in 2007, 2008 and 2009, and promotes and sells it Cadillac Golf products in over 150 stores in China.
The Respondent has been a legitimate user of its CADILLAC GOLF trade mark in China. To the contrary, there is no evidence that the Trade Mark has a high reputation in China in respect of golfing products and golfing promotional activities, as the Complainant is using the Trade Mark in this regard only in the USA.
The Respondent has registered several other domain names in China and Asia comprising the wording “cadillac golf ” in January 2010.
Whether the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith
The Respondent did not register and is not using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent did not register the disputed domain name in order to sell or license it to the Complainant.
The Respondent's products and services are listed on the Website, including its brands CADILLAC GOLF and LEXUS GOLF.
The English and Chinese language meaning of Cadillac Golf and the word “cadillac” is the name of the French explorer in North America and the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in Class 28 in respect of golfing goods has no relationship whatsoever with the Complainant.
The Respondent has developed its CADILLAC GOLF brand as a golfing brand and for this reason has registered the disputed domain name.
The Respondent can confirm that it has no intention in the future of selling its Cadillac Golf domain names. However, the Respondent states a third person unrelated to these proceedings has fraudulently offered these domain names for sale without authorisation from the Respondent.
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. From the evidence presented in the record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceeding should be English.
Paragraph 11(a) allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding. In other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui'erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-0293; Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin, WIPO Case No. D2006-0593).
The Complainant has requested that English be the language of the proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) the Registrar for the disputed domain name provides its registration agreement for registration of “.com” domain names in both Chinese and English language, and there does not appear to be any provision for a domain name applicant, including the Respondent, to choose between English or Chinese as the controlling language of the registration agreement. Therefore, by registering a “.com” domain name, an applicant, including the Respondent, accepts the use of both languages in regard to the domain name and disputes regarding the domain name;
(2) the Respondent is competent in the English language because the Website is in English and the Respondent has previously written in English to the Complainant's predecessor regarding possible negotiations regarding the Trade Mark and the CADILLAC WREATH & CREST LOGO.
The Respondent has requested that the Complaint be submitted in Chinese language, or alternatively that a Chinese translation of the Complaint be submitted. The Respondent did not provide any reasons in support of this request.
On December 30, 2009 Xiamen eName Network Technology Corporation Limited dba eName Corp transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties' ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004; Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, WIPO Case No. D2006-0432).
The Panel does not agree with the Complainant's contentions that, by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent has accepted the use of both Chinese and English language in regard to the disputed domain name and disputes regarding the disputed domain name. The Panel is bound to accept the notification of the Registrar that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.
The Panel nonetheless finds that evidence has been adduced by the Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language (Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, WIPO Case No. D2006-0432). This evidence includes the fact the Website is in English language and the fact the Respondent has previously written to the Complainant's predecessor in English language seeking approval to use the Trade Mark in China in cooperation with the Complainant's predecessor. The Panel would further observe that it appears the Respondent has not suffered significant difficulty in analysing the English language Complaint in order to prepare and file its Response.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that, on balance, it is unlikely that the Respondent will be prejudiced, should English be adopted as the language of the proceeding.
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predate by many years the date of registration of the disputed domain name.
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).
The addition of the generic word “golf” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name in any way, particularly given the fact the Trade Mark is used by the Complainant in respect of golfing goods and equipment, and in respect of the sponsoring of professional golf tournaments. The word “golf” should be disregarded in determining the question of confusing similarity.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to you 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 (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name even if you have acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you 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 trade mark or service mark at issue.
There is no evidence that the Complainant has authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark or similar mark. The Complainant has prior rights in the Trade Mark which precede the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name by many years. As such, the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the burden is therefore on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (Do The Hustle, LLC v.Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Respondent has failed to satisfactorily show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, this proceeding has all the hallmarks of an opportunistic and unauthorised attempt to trade off the goodwill of a well-known trade mark.
The Respondent does not evidence in its Response that it has any registered trade mark rights in China or elsewhere in respect of CADILLAC or CADILLAC GOLF.
The Respondent has referred repeatedly in the Response to its pending application for registration of the CADILLAC SNAKE EYES trade mark in China in Class 28. This trade mark appears to comprise, in addition to the Trade Mark, the Complainant's CADILLAC EMBLEM LOGO. The Complaint's representatives have sought leave to file supplemental submissions providing evidence that the Respondent's CADILLAC SNAKE EYES trade mark application in China has in fact been rejected and is invalid. In the circumstances, given the Respondent's attempt to claim rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by virtue of these trade mark applications in China, the Panel is prepared to accept the supplemental submissions filed by the Complainant.
In the above light, the Panel finds the submissions of the Respondent regarding its attempted development of a CADILLAC GOLF brand in China do not serve to establish any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Trade Mark is clearly a well-known trade mark worldwide and in particular in the USA and in China, where the Respondent is based. Its unauthorised use in respect of any goods is therefore likely to cause confusion, regardless of whether the Complainant has registered or used the Trade Mark in respect of such goods. In this case, on the evidence filed by the Complainant, the Trade Mark is in fact registered and used by the Complainant in respect of golfing products and accessories and the sponsoring of golf exhibitions and tournaments.
There has not been sufficient evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint fulfills the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the following conduct amounts to registration and use in bad faith on the part of the Respondent:
“By using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
The Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name has a connection with the Complainant, contrary to the fact. There is a strong likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Website and the CADILLAC GOLF products offered by the Respondent on the Website.
Not only does the disputed domain name comprise the Trade Mark, but the Respondent has been, without authorisation, using the various trade marks and logos of the Complainant, as well as images of the Complainant's CADILLAC motor vehicles on the Website, as well as other major automobile brands, thereby increasing the likelihood of consumer confusion.
The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv).
The Panel finds that the worldwide fame of the Trade Mark lends further weight to a finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith for illegitimate purposes (Harrods Limited v. Josh Crutchley, WIPO Case No. D2008-0653).
The Panel finds:
a. the Respondent's attempts to rely upon its trade mark application for CADILLAC SNAKE EYES as evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name, when the Respondent knew in fact its trade mark application had been rejected and declared invalid; and
b. the Respondent's registration of further domain names in China and Asia comprising the wording CADILLAC GOLF in January 2010, after the commencement of this proceeding, constitute further evidence of bad faith.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
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 name <cadillacgolf.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Sebastian Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 10, 2010