pinksheetsnews pinksheetsnewsalert Jeff Galpern Extortion Scam by Jeff Galpern, Internet

Well Known Scam Artist Jeff Galpern from Boca Raton has tried to Extort and Scam Pink OTC Markets Inc. out of $25,000 , Jeff Galpern will try anything to get Money, Scam ,Steal, Lie, Cheat it doesnt matter to him. He opened 2 domains listed below and then tried to extort $25,000 Just read this from the national arbitration forum :

Pink OTC Markets Inc. v. Consolidated Diversified Investments and Jeff Galpern

Claim Number: FA1001001305256

Complainant is Pink OTC Markets Inc. (Complainant), represented by Beth N. Lowson of The Nelson Law Firm, LLC, New York, USA. Respondent is Consolidated Diversified Investments and Jeff Galpern (Respondent), Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <pinksheetsnews.com> and <pinksheetsnewsalert.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically January 27, 2010. With its Complaint, Complainant also chose to proceed entirely electronically under the new Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Rules) and the new Forums Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Supplemental Rules) by submitted an opt-in form available on the Forums website.

On January 29, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <pinksheetsnews.com> and <pinksheetsnewsalert.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On February 12, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 4, 2010, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondents registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@pinksheetsnews.com and postmaster@pinksheetsnewsalert.com. Also on February 12, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On March 10, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist.

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

A. Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. The domain names that Respondent registered, <pinksheetsnews.com> and <pinksheetsnewsalert.com>, are confusingly similar to Complainants PINK SHEETS mark.

2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <pinksheetsnews.com> and < pinksheetsnewsalert.com> domain names.

3. Respondent registered and used the <pinksheetsnews.com> and <pinksheetsnewsalert.com> domain names in bad faith.

B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

Complainant, Pink OTC Markets Inc., is a financial information and technology services company that provides information and trading services for over-the-counter securities markets and market participants. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations with United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for its PINK SHEETS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,308,925 issued on December 11, 1984).

Respondent registered the <pinksheetsnews.com> domain name September 11, 2009, and the <pinksheetsnewsalert.com> domain name April 16, 2009. Respondents disputed domain names resolve to a website that displays securities and trading information in competition with Complainant. Upon receipt of correspondence from Complainant in regard to the trademark infringement, Respondent proposed an offer to sell both disputed domain names to Complainant for $25,000.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

aragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the

Given Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Complainant contends that Respondents <pinksheetsnews.com> and <pinksheetsnewsalert.com> domain names are confusingly similar to its PINK SHEETS mark. Complainant argues that adding the descriptive terms news, or newsalert is not sufficient to distinguish the domain names from its mark. Complainant further argues that the addition of the generic top level domain (gTLD) .com is also insufficient for purposes of distinguishing the disputed domain names from its mark. The Panel finds that Respondents disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainants mark because the disputed domain names contain the mark in its entirety, eliminate the space between words, (Therefore, the Panel finds that the <pinksheetsnews.com> and <pinksheetsnewsalert.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainants PINK SHEETS mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i).

The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy 4(a)(i).

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <pinksheetsnews.com> and <pinksheetsnewsalert.com> domain names. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations. After Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show why it has rights or interests in the disputed domain names.

Complainant further asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the <pinksheetsnews.com> and <pinksheetsnewsalert.com> domain names and that Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use its PINK SHEETS mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names does not indicate, and Respondent does not offer any evidence, that it is commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that without affirmative evidence of Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, Complainant further alleges that Respondent, upon correspondence from Complainant, offered to sell the disputed domain names for $25,000. Complainant asserts that the offered price and willingness to sell the disputed domain names by Respondent is further evidence of the lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondents willingness to sell the disputed domain for a price above out-of-pocket expenses is further evidence to support findings that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondents offer to sell the disputed domain names for $25,000 is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. Complainant contends that upon receiving its second cease and desist letter, Respondent responded by e-mail that it would sell the domain names for $25,000, an amount Respondent said was not negotiable. The Panel finds that Respondents conduct in attempting to sell the disputed domain names, after being contacted by Complainant, for a price greater than expected out-of-pocket costs, is evidence to support findings of bad faith. Finding bad faith where the respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to the complainant for $10,000 when the respondent was contacted by the complainant.

Complainant further contends that Respondents registration and use of the disputed domain names were in bad faith because Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of Complainant by offering competing services under the confusingly similar <pinksheetsnews.com> and <pinksheetsnewsalert.com> domain names. The Panel finds that Respondents use of the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to its website offering services in competition with Complainant is further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).).

Complaint also contends that Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its site for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion between Respondents <pinksheetsnews.com> and <pinksheetsnewsalert.com> domain names and Complainants PINK SHEETS mark. The Panel finds that Respondents use to divert Internet users seeking Complainants services to Respondents website offering competing services for financial gain is further evidence of bad faith .(finding bad faith where the respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the <pinksheetsnews.com> and <pinksheetsnewsalert.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist

Dated: March 24, 2010