12645 Germane Ave 12 Apple Valley MN 55124 REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is borladirect.com registered with Go Daddy Software Inc PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially

 2006 Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case No. D2005-0636 August 18  2005 True Blue Productions Inc v Chris Hoffman WIPO Case No. D2004-0930 December 22  2004 AT&T Corp v

 2006 Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case No. D2005-0636 August 18  2005 True Blue Productions Inc v Chris Hoffman WIPO Case No. D2004-0930 December 22  2004 AT&T Corp v

 2006 Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case No. D2005-0636 August 18  2005 True Blue Productions Inc v Chris Hoffman WIPO Case No. D2004-0930 December 22  2004 AT&T Corp v

more than one bite at the apple Respondent also argued that Complainant s evidence on its advertising expenditures is inadequate FINDINGS Complainant has established rights in its AA mark through registration with the U.S Patent and Trademark

 2006 Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case No. D2005-0636 August 18  2005 True Blue Productions Inc v Chris Hoffman WIPO Case No. D2004-0930 December 22  2004 AT&T Corp v

 2006 Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case No. D2005-0636 August 18  2005 True Blue Productions Inc v Chris Hoffman WIPO Case No. D2004-0930 December 22  2004 AT&T Corp v

saying that the domain name apple.com may be used by anyone in connection with computers because it may be used by anyone in connection with the fruit As appears below under the next heading the Panel has found that the Respondent s statement

grounds its contentions is APPLE According to the documentary evidence and contentions submitted Complainant registered the trademarks APPLE and APPLE Design in Colombia in 1984 Reference is made to Annex 3 of the Complaint The Panel accepts

as trademarks for example APPLE for personal computers DELTA for airline services or AMAZON for online sales services The Panel is disturbed by Complainant �s failure to provide any meaningful evidence to support its statement that it owns

4 c iii of the Policy See Apple Computer Inc v DomainHouse.com Inc WIPO Case No D2000-0341 �the express language of the Policy indicates that its drafters intended to limit the circumstances in which legitimate noncommercial use could

equivalent of using apple to sell apples However the Panel is faced with a situation where Complainant holds valid service marks issued by the Spanish trademark authorities Can ANDALUCIA be said to be the dominant feature of those marks

the University to inter alia Apple Computer Pepsi-Cola and Microsoft The respondent asserted that the claim under the Policy was barred by laches on account of the complainant �s failure to raise it until more than five years after the date of

are dictionary terms e.g APPLE computers GATEWAY computers TIME magazine PEOPLE magazine SPRITE soda The important point is that YAHOO is an arbitrary mark as applied to the Complainant s Internet-related services and is therefore an

meaning Words such as APPLE and ORANGE or phrases such as EL CORTE INGLES �the English tailor � to name but a few are good examples It is true that the Complainant �s marks are not as famous as these examples However the Policy does not

in dispute Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhors WIPO Case No D2005-0636 Furthermore it has been previously established that bad faith may be present where a domain name �is so obviously

the top-level domain us See Apple Computer Inc v Synashko FA 636423 Nat Arb Forum Mar 10 2006 finding the appledeals.us domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant s APPLE mark see also Sports Auth Mich Inc v Batu 5 FA 176541 Nat Arb

domain name Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case No D2005-0636 Furthermore it is not the first time that the Respondent tries to use the Complainant �s trademarks for commercial gain

faith See Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case D2005-0636 in which the panel held that � �the Respondent �s � opportunistic exploitation of inevitable Internet user confusion �..by

dispute See Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case No D2005-0636 copies of which have been provided to the Panel Furthermore it has been previously established that bad faith may be