http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0675.html
In his written response to the UDRP, the respondent's lawyer claims that his client's domain "networksolution.com" is not confusingly similar to "networksolutions.com". Just for starters thats a pretty bold claim, but in his response he accidentally spells his client's domain as "networksolutions.com". Kinda hard for a panelist to overlook that
In his written response to the UDRP, the respondent's lawyer claims that his client's domain "networksolution.com" is not confusingly similar to "networksolutions.com". Just for starters thats a pretty bold claim, but in his response he accidentally spells his client's domain as "networksolutions.com". Kinda hard for a panelist to overlook that