A Threat To The Global Internet Infrastructure
PredatorsWatch.com Owner’s Bio
The websites Law Enforcement Association http://lawenforcementassociation.com now Law Enforcement Affairs http://lawenforcementaffairs.com are own by an individual 
whose aliases is Michael King, Michael Wayne King or MIKEKINGUSA.com. This individual based on his training and education harvest public records. He came on our radar when we posted an ALERT regarding Potential Predators http://potentialpredators.com whose name immediately changed to http://predatorswatch.com
The website potential predator was erected primarily to EXTORT and BLACKMAIL those whose online activities engages in predatory practices. But also to EXTORT money from anyone who have had a mugshot taken.
After complaints mounted, the operator Michael King aka Wayne Michael King aka Michael Wayne King shut down potential predator and started http://theonline-watch.com. That too got shut down. Next he then started http://predatorswatch.com. It appears like predatorswatch.com is offline and online.
Our investigation of this individual turn out that this Michael King aka Mike King is the operator of http://wikiwarnings.com.
According to the site, http://wikiwarnings.com was The World’s Number One Consumer Protection Site. It is now The World’s Number One Consumer Complaintboard Site. A Camouflage for EXTORTION and BLACKMAIL
Michael Wayne King aka Wayne Michael King aka Michael W. King is a Mugshot OPERATOR that harvests public record databases and post mugshots of 
DEADBEAT Dads and others and try to EXTORT money from these folks. His websites are full of tirade against people including his boss and co-workers. WHAT A SLIME.
This Michael King is also associated with Elite Consulting Services USA, LLC., Elite Florida Catering, Omega Enterprises USA, LLC. and also goes by Wayne Michael King which is his LEGAL NAME or a relative. There is also a Michael A. King that has been identified to be associated with Jennifer A. King of Florida.
In retaliation, Michael Wayne King and his Associates registered domains using my name and populating the internet with LIES. Among the lies circulated, scamfraudalert own http://predatorswatch.com.
These are dangerous people with an army of affiliates around the GLOBE capable of undertaking massive destruction.
Below is an example of comments Michael Wayne King posted online about his former employer.
Who is Adam H. Putnam
Adam H. Putnam is the commissioner of the agency Florida Department of Agriculture in Tallahassee, Florida. As a former employee of Adam H. Putnam, I can tell you first hand what he is like. Adam H. Putnam is not an honest person. He was provided information that some of his employees were acting inappropriately and in some cases acting in violation of the law.
_______________________
- Join The Class Action Lawsuit Against Mugshot Websites
- File a Complaint With FBI – Internet Crime Complaint
- File a Google Copyright Complaint
- Must Read ~ Mouse Trap How They Find Predators On Craigslist
- Recommendation – File A Report On Michael W. King on ROR
- Michael King Legal Documents – Google Drive
- Michael King Legal Documents – Box.com
Blackstone Legal Supplies, Inc.
Located in Lauderhill, FL
Eyes for The Blind, Inc.
Located in Lauderhill, FL
Lawyer’s Art Shop, Inc.
Located in Lauderhill, FL
Filings Inc.
Bonnie Heyman
Located in Lauderhill, FL
_____________________
Michael King Enterprises Inc
Office Location
13358 Sw 152nd St # 2902
Miami, Florida 33177-1327
United States
Michael W King was born in 1957. Michael currently lives in Tallahassee, Florida. Before that, Michael lived in Tallahassee, FL from 2007 to 2008. Before that, Michael lived in North Miami, FL from 1995 to 2004.
Relatives of Michael and Jennifer King
Michael Wayne King ~43/Miami, FL
Raleigh, NC
West Lafayette, IN
North Judson, IN
Inez M King
Jennifer Adriana King
Kristie L King
Nicole Bro King
Wayne M King
Jennifer A. King ~ Managing Member at Elite Consulting Services USA, LLC – View 2 other companies ~ Miami, FL
Elite Consulting Services USA, LLC and
Michael W. King ~ Manager at Elite Consulting Services USA, LLC
Michael W. King
Vice President at Elite Florida Catering, Inc
President at Michael King Enterprises Inc.
President at Omega Enterprises USA Inc.
Michael W King was born in 1957. Michael currently lives in Tallahassee, Florida. Before that, Michael lived in Tallahassee, FL from 2007 to 2008. Before that, Michael lived in North Miami, FL from 1995 to 2004.
Michael W King ~ 56
North Miami, FL
Tallahassee, FL
Miami, FL
Relatives:
Linda Johnson king
Marso Barbara King
Marsyna Malynda King
Sandra Theresa King
Teresa S King
Michael Wayne King – 43, lived and work
1.Miami, FL
2.Coral Gables, FL
3.Boca Raton, FL
4.North Judson, IN
5.West Lafayette, IN
Relatives
1.Diana L. Bowman king
2.Inez M. King
3.Kristie L King
4.Steven Joese King
5.Wayne M. King
Possible Relatives:
1.Wayne M King – (Father)
2.Inez M King – (Mother)
3.Steven Joese King
4.Diana L Bowmanking
5.Kristie L King
6.Nicole Bro King
7.Stacey Lyn Ekdahl
8.Michael W King
9.Jennifer Pedraza (WIFE) Jennifer Adriana King
Associated Businesses:
Private Bureau Of Investigations Inc
Vista Alegre Townhouses Villa Stage V Condominiu
Previous Phone Numbers:
1. (786) 242-7130
2. (574) 896-3327
Previous Addresses:
1. 13358 152nd St #2902, Miami, FL 33177
2. 3500 Ponce De Leon Blvd, Coral Gables, FL 33134
3. 3500 Ponce De Leon Blvd #2, Coral Gables, FL 33134
4. 9455 Boca Gardens Cir #A, Boca Raton, FL 33496
5. 3359 Minix Rd, North Judson, IN 46366
6. 9455 Boca Gardens Cir #A, Boca Raton, FL 33496
7. 3500 Ponce De Leon Blvd #2, Coral Gables, FL 33134
8. 9455 Boca Gardens Pkwy #B, Boca Raton, FL 33496
9. 15327 179th Ter, Miami, FL 33187
10. 286 Littleton St #202, West Lafayette, IN 47906
11. 8932 Sandridge Ave, Hobe Sound, FL 33455
12. 13310 152nd St #3105, Miami, FL 33177
13. 2175 56th Ct #211, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
14. 9455 Boca Gardens Cir #B, Boca Raton, FL 33496
15. 2175 56th St #211, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
16. 20 Littleton St #7, W Lafayette, IN 47906
17. 272 Littleton St #9, West Lafayette, IN 47906
18. 272 Littleton St, West Lafayette, IN 47906
19. 272 Littleton St #57, West Lafayette, IN 47906
India
SkyTrack Telematics Pvt Ltd
Level 7, Maximus Towers
Bulding 2A,Mindspace Complex
Hi-Tech City,Hyderabad
India
Tel : +91-40-40339781
Mob:+91-994-999-3134
Email: support@SkyTrack.in
USA/Canada
call: 1 888.658.0994 <====
Company: Gottfrid Swartholm PRQ Inet KB
Address: Box 1206 Stockholm SE 114 79 Sweden
Phone: +46.737721056
Fax: +46.737721056
My mom has continually received cold calls and email from two fraud companies, “Crest Trust Management”, and “The Securities and Financial Commission”, with the later trying to appear as if they are a U.S. Government agency. They keep asking my mom to pay an advance fee, for legal fees and recovery costs, related to an investment, which my mom participated in 2 years ago.
The fraudsters presented themselves as:
Securities and Financial Commission (SECFC )
735 3rd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1802
TEL: +1 206-801-3381
FAX: +1 206-299-9494
WEBSITE: http://gov.secfc.com
EMAIL: regulator@gov.secfc.com
And:
Crest Trust Management, LLC
721 2nd Avenue Seattle,WA 98104-1701, USA
Tel +1 206 237 0051
Fax: +1-206-299-9749
Website: http://www.cresttm.com
Email: richard.taylor@cresttm.com
This is one of the fraudsters “Stage-Names”:
Richard Taylor
Crest Trust Management, LLC
721 2nd Avenue Seattle,WA 98104-1701, USA
Tel: +1 206-237-0051; Fax: +1 206-299-9749
Below is what I know thus far – –
For the Fake Government Agency, I found – –
For: http://www.gov.secfc.com/ The sub-domain is “gov”
The main-domain is merely a “.com” (“dot-com”, not “dot-gov”)
The actual registered domain is “secfc.com” – –
Registrant:
James Cann
23 Bishop St., Dublin 2
Dublin, 1010 IE
Phone: +1.00351377265982
Email: james.c@infotudo.org
Registrar Name….: Register.com
Registrar Whois…: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
Domain Name: secfc.com
Created on…………..: 2010-12-06
Expires on…………..: 2011-12-06
Administrative Contact:
James Cann
23 Bishop St., Dublin 2
Dublin, 1010 IE
Phone: +1.00351377265982
Email: james.c@infotudo.org
Please note that clicking on either – – http://www.gov.secfc.com/ or http://www.secfc.com/ loads the same webpage…
The physical address for the fake government agency is a Mailbox address – –
SECFC Securities and Financial Commission
735 3rd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1802
(2.) For Crest Trust Management, LLC, I found – –
Registrant Contact:
PRQ Inet KB
Gottfrid Swartholm
Box 1206, Stockholm, SE 114 79 SE
Administrative Contact:
PRQ Inet KB
Gottfrid Swartholm (registry@prq.se)
46.737721056
Box 1206, Stockholm, SE 114 79 SE
Technical Contact:
PRQ Inet KB
Gottfrid Swartholm (registry@prq.se)
46.737721056
Box 1206, Stockholm, SE 114 79 SE
Creation date: 06 Jun 2011 23:28:03 ( Website just created )
Expiration date: 06 Jun 2012 23:28:00
These con men appear to be just your usual advance fee scammers, but it surprises me that they are getting away with trying to appear as if they represent the U.S. Government.
Has anyone else received these, or similar calls?
Source:http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=141065
National Arbitration Forum
DECISION
Quibids Holdings LLC v. PRQ Inet KB / Gottfrid Swartholm
Claim Number: FA1112001421131
PARTIES
Complainant is Quibids Holdings LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Brody Stout of CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is PRQ Inet KB / Gottfrid Swartholm (“Respondent”), Sweden.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are and , registered with eNom, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 21, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 21, 2011.
On December 22, 2011, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the and domain names are registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 30, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 19, 2012 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@quibidsscams.org and postmaster@quibidsscams.net. Also on December 30, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s 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 January 24, 2012, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s and domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUIBIDS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the and domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the and domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Quibids Holdings LLC, operates an auction website, offering online auction service and online retail store services featuring a wide variety of consumers goods and gift cards. Complainant has registered its QUIBIDS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,870,521 registered November 2, 2010).
Respondent, PRQ Inet KB / Gottfrid Swartholm, registered the and domain names on June 3, 2011. The disputed domain names resolve to website offering a review of Complainant’s services/products but also advertising for competing products by diverting consumers, through a pay-per-click link, to a competitor’s website.
DISCUSSION
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.”
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must 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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has registered its QUIBIDS mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,870,521 registered November 2, 2010). In previous cases, such as Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006), panels have established that registration of a mark with a trademark authority like the USPTO grants rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Panels have also concluded that a USPTO registration is sufficient even when a respondent lives elsewhere. See Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction). The Panel here therefore determines that Complainant has proven that it owns rights in the QUIBIDS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s and domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUIBIDS mark because they begin with the QUIBIDS mark, followed only by the generic term “scams” and either the “.org” or “.net” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). The Panel holds that adding a generic term like “scam” does not affect the disputed domain name for purposes of distinguishing it under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google Inc. v. Xtraplus Corp., D2001-0125 (WIPO Apr. 16, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as “buy” or “gear” to the end); see also Sutton Group Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Rodger, D2005-0126 (WIPO June 27, 2005) (finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the SUTTON mark because the addition of descriptive or non-distinctive elements to the distinctive element in a domain name is immaterial to the analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel also concludes that neither the “.org” nor “.net” gTLD defeats a claim of confusing similarity. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Katadyn N. Am. v. Black Mountain Stores, FA 520677 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (“[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.net” is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether a domain name is identical to a mark.”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s and domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUIBIDS mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel deems Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
In attempting to satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must present a prima facie case against Respondent and then the burden shifts to Respondent to prove rights and legitimate interests. Although Complainant effectively made its initial case against Respondent, Respondent offered no answer or contentions in Response. As a result of Respondent’s lack of participation in these proceedings, the Panel may infer that Complainant’s contentions are accurate and that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests. See TotalFinaElf E&P USA, Inc. v. Farnes, FA 117028 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“In order to bring a claim under the Policy, Complainant must first establish a prima facie case. Complainant’s [initial burden] is to provide proof of valid, subsisting rights in a mark that is similar or identical to the domain name in question.”); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). As a result of Respondent’s lack of participation in these proceedings, the Panel may infer that Complainant’s contentions are accurate and that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“Given Respondent’s failure to submit a substantive answer in a timely fashion, the Panel accepts as true all of the allegations of the complaint.”). In the interest of fairness, however, the Panel will continue the analysis according to the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors.
Complainant contends that Respondent is not sponsored by, or legitimately affiliated with, Complainant in any way and has not been given permission to use Complainant’s QUIBIDS mark. Complainant alleges that the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as “PRQ Inet KB / Gottfrid Swartholm,” which provides no evidence of a nominal relationship between Respondent and the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel may conclude that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and consequently lacks rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites that provide information purportedly reviewing Complainant’s products and services. Complainant also asserts, however, that the resolving website also advertises for Complainant’s competitor, ZBiddy Penny Auctions, by recommending Zbiddy and even providing a link to the Zbiddy website. Complainant contends that providing unauthorized information under Complainant’s mark and advertising for a competitor does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel agrees with Complainant. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that use of the complainant’s mark “as a portal to suck surfers into a site sponsored by [the respondent] hardly seems legitimate”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the complainant’s business did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel deems Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the domain names to attract Internet users to a competing website disrupts Complainant’s business pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The website displays a hyperlink to a business, ZBiddy Penny Auctions, in competition with Complainant’s business. Internet users may access Complainant’s competitor’s website through the disputed domain name, thereby disrupting traffic to Complainant’s website. The Panel finds that misdirecting Internet traffic to a competitor’s website and away from Complainant’s website is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names); see also David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s registration use of the disputed domain names to misdirect Internet traffic to the corresponding websites for commercial gain demonstrate bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant contends that the domain names create uncertainty as to the affiliation between Complainant’s mark and the resolving websites’ hyperlink to Complainant’s competitor, ZBiddy Penny Auctions. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to attract and confuse consumers to its website for financial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent’s prior use of the domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant’s competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also BPI Comm’cns, Inc. v. Boogie TV LLC, FA 105755 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2002) (“Complainants are in the music and entertainment business. The links associated with and appear to be in competition for the same Internet users, which Complainants are trying to attract with the web site. There is clearly a likelihood of confusion between and BILLBOARD as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or of a product or service on the web site.”).
The Panel deems Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the and domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: February 8, 2012
National Arbitration Forum
DECISION
Microsoft Corporation v. PRQ Inet KB / Gottfrid Swartholm
Claim Number: FA1206001450976
PARTIES
Complainant is Microsoft Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is PRQ Inet KB / Gottfrid Swartholm (“Respondent”), Sweden.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is , registered with eNom.com.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 27, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on June 27, 2012.
On June 28, 2012, eNom.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name is registered with eNom.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 29, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 19, 2012 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@xboxliverewards.com. Also on June 29, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s 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 July 30, 2012, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it has rights in the XBOX LIVE mark, which it uses in connection with a video game entertainment system and related goods and services. Complainant asserts that it is the owner of trademark registrations for the XBOX LIVE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,902,268 registered November 9, 2004) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
The domain name is confusingly similar to the XBOX LIVE mark.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and the domain name resolves to a website where Respondent operates a competing loyalty rewards program.
Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
The domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business.
Respondent attempted to attract Internet users to the domain name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the domain name.
Respondent’s disclaimer does not mitigate bad faith.
Respondent registered the domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the XBOX LIVE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Microsoft Corporation, is a worldwide leader in software and services. Complainant has rights in the XBOX LIVE mark, which it uses in connection with a video game entertainment system and related goods and services. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for the XBOX LIVE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,902,268 registered November 9, 2004) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent, PRQ Inet KB / Gottfrid Swartholm, registered the domain name on March 27, 2012.
DISCUSSION
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.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must 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.
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has rights in the XBOX LIVE mark based on its ownership of USPTO trademark registrations for the XBOX LIVE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,902,268 registered November 9, 2004). The registration of a mark with a trademark authority, regardless of the location of the parties, is evidence of rights in the mark. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the XBOX LIVE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the XBOX LIVE mark. Respondent’s addition of the descriptive term “rewards” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” fails to distinguish the domain name from the XBOX LIVE mark. The addition of a term that describes the complainant’s business is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark. See Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2005) (finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s from the complainant’s DURACELL mark). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar despite the addition of a gTLD. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the XBOX LIVE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent is not licensed to use the XBOX LIVE mark and is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of XBOX LIVE products. Additionally, the WHOIS record for the domain name lists “PRQ Inet KB / Gottfrid Swartholm” as the domain name registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant next alleges that the domain name’s use is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The domain name resolves to a website that operates an XBOX LIVE rewards program in competition with the rewards program Complainant operates for the XBOX LIVE system. See Florists’ Transworld Delivery v. Malek, FA 676433 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 6, 2006) (the operation of a competing website on a confusingly similar domain name is not a use which provides the respondent with protection from an unfavorable UDRP finding under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that operates a competing XBOX LIVE rewards program. The operation of a competing business with a disputed domain name is disruptive. See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the domain name was registered and is used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent attempted, for commercial gain, to attract Internet users to the domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that operates a loyalty rewards program in competition with the one that Complainant offers. Respondent operates this rewards program to confuse Internet users and, presumably, to gain a monetary benefit. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in a bad faith attempt to commercially gain from Internet users’ mistakes under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark).
Respondent’s bad faith is not mitigated by the inclusion of a vague disclaimer on the domain name. After receiving the notice of Complainant’s demand, Respondent added the word “Unofficial” to its website heading (stating in relevant part, “XboxLiveRewards.com – Earn Microsoft® Points (Unofficial)) and added the statement, “We are non-profit to maximize the amount of points we can give you!” Panels have found that the use of a disclaimer does not mitigate bad faith. See Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Vartanian, FA 1106528 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 26, 2007) (“Respondent’s use of a disclaimer does note mitigate a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the XBOX LIVE mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2008) (“That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant’s mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name be TRANSFERRED.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: August 13, 2012
How to remove yourself from Predatorswatch.com and Potentialprostitutes.com?
Immediately file a complaint with IC3 and Google Copyright Infringement. Provide Google with links to your profile as well as link to sites.
WHY OMEGA PAWNSHOP SOFTWARE
http://omegapawnshopsoftware.com
Omega Pawnshop Software was created by former law enforcement personnel in conjunction with some of the best engineers in the world. The software was designed to lower the risk of government fines, purchasing stolen property, and most of all, losing money.
On top, you can see up to date stolen property. This can be filtered by zip code, county, state, city, item, color… On bottom you will see all law enforcement alerts that link suspects with stolen property. Imagine, having this information when a potential client comes to pawn or sell you a piece of property. Our system automatically cross references both alerts when you enter the purchase or pawn information.
For a small monthly fee, you can be up and running within minutes. Our system is 100% completely virtual and is mirrored and backed over and over to ensure an absolute zero chance of losing any data. We only use the best of server technology to ensure that your software and site is up and running without incident 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. In the rare event you encounter an issue, you have the privilege of having our technical supports staff available to you 24/7.
LOW COST AND HIGH QUALITY
For as little as $120.00 per month, you as a pawnshop owner can become a member of Omega within minutes. No contracts, no hidden cost, and no downloads. If you have a computer, any computer and an internet connection, you are set! No high license fee, yearly membership or mail order CD ROM. We are a state-of-the-art software company that owns their own hosting company which allows us to transfer the savings on to you, our customer.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
We are 2nd to none when it comes to customer service. Our IT service center is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year for your convenience. By a click of a button, you can be chatting with one of our IT experts, or for those of you who prefer live contact, simply call us at 1 888.658.0994.
ON LINE STORE
With Omega Software, you have the option to have an Online Store. By simply clicking a button, you can add your inventory to your very own online store. Having an online store will open your customer base tremendously. Publishing your products will expend your clientele worldwide.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND STOLEN PROPERTY ALERTS
Our patented software allows victims and law enforcement officers to post their stolen property. In doing so, we are allowed to cross reference anyone who comes into your pawnshop to sell or pawn. This will lower the risk of purchasing stolen property and later losing it to law enforcement.
Gleam Auto Body Tech Inc
P.O. Box 770482
Miami, FL 33177
map
Follow us on Instagram! Over 7,000 A.V.I. followers
Instagram: A.V.I.
Email: Avi_tdd@yahoo.com
PO Box 770482
Miami, Fl 33177
Shirts Direct USA
Address: PO Box 770482,
Miami, FL 33177
Tel: 1-888-494-6430
Advertising Marketing Experts
Address: PO Box 770482
Miami, FL 33177
Tel: (888) 343 6830
Fax: 786 221 0604
________________________
Gleam Auto Body Tech Inc
17872 S Dixie Hwy
Miami, Florida 33157
Today 8:00 am – 6:00 pm
Phone (305) 776-1175
Email Yosvanylahera@hotmail.com
Website http://www.facebook.com/gleamautobodyshop
A SPARK TOUCH COMPUTERS
331 Nw 45th Ave
Miami, FL 33126-5347
(786) 286-2441
Juan Lahera
Yamile Lahera
Martha Lahera
Yosvany Lahera
Rommy Lahera
Detail by Entity Name
Florida Profit Corporation
MICHAEL KING ENTERPRISES INC.
Filing Information
Document Number P05000047057
FEI/EIN Number 134295732
Date Filed 03/30/2005
State FL
Status INACTIVE
Effective Date 03/29/2005
Last Event ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT
Event Date Filed 09/14/2007
Event Effective Date NONE
Principal Address
18243 SW 149 PL
MIAMI FL 33187 US
Changed 04/28/2006
Mailing Address
18243 SW 149 PL
MIAMI FL 33187 US
Changed 04/28/2006
Registered Agent Name & Address
KING, MICHAEL W
18243 SW 149 PL
MIAMI FL 33187 US
Address Changed: 04/28/2006
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
Title P
KING, MICHAEL W
18243 SW 149 PL
MIAMI FL 33187 US
Annual Reports
Report Year Filed Date
2006 04/28/2006
Relatives: Wayne M King, Inez M King, Steven Joese King, Diana L Bowmanking, Kristie L King, Nicole Bro King, Stacey Lyn Ekdahl, Michael W King, Jennifer Pedraza
Previous Residences: Coral Gables, FL | Boca Raton, FL | North Judson, IN | West Lafayette, IN | Hobe Sound, FL | Fort Lauderdale, FL | W Lafayette, IN
Also Known As: Mike King, Wayne M King aka Michael King, Michael Wayne King
Employer: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Tallahassee, Florida
Business Associations : Private Bureau Of Investigations Inc | Vista Alegre Townhouses Villa Stage V Condominium| Private Bureau Of Investigations Inc
Also Known As: Mike King, Wayne M King
Places Live:Miami, FL – Current
Coral Gables, FL – Boca Raton, FL – North Judson, IN
West Lafayette, IN
Detail by Entity Name
Florida Profit Corporation
PRIVATE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS INC.
Filing Information
Document Number:P02000070324
FEI/EIN Number:NONE
Date Filed:06/26/2002
State:FL
Status:INACTIVE
Effective Date:07/01/2002
Last Event:ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT
Event Date Filed:09/19/2003
Event Effective Date:NONE
Principal Address
3500 PONCE DE LEON BLVD.
SUITE 2
CORAL GABLES FL 33134
Mailing Address
3500 PONCE DE LEON BLVD.
SUITE 2
CORAL GABLES FL 33134
Registered Agent Name & Address
KING, MICHAEL W
3500 PONCE DE LEON BLVD.
SUITE 2
CORAL GABLES FL 33134
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
Title P
KING, MICHAEL W
3500 PONCE DE LEON BLVD. SUITE 2
CORAL GABLES FL 33134
Annual Reports
No Annual Reports Filed
Document Images
06/26/2002 — Domestic Profit
Public Record Harvester Michael Wayne King of Miami, Florida is an individual that should be on the PUBLIC RADAR.
NOT ONLY DOES HE HARVEST PUBLIC RECORDS, HE CREATES GOOGLE IMAGES and GO ABOUT THE INTERNET POSTINGS tirades ON SEVERAL WEBSITES MAINLY http://RIPOFFREPORT.COM AGAINST THOSE HE HAS A BEEF WITH TO FOR SOME INSANE REASON.
Below are some of his tirade DIRECTED against former co-workers at the Florida Department of Agriculture and others
http://wikiwarnings.com/stuart-scott-department-of-agriculture/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/wes-singletary-of-tallahassee-is-corrupt/
http://wikiprobe.org/2013/03/23/did-luann-stiles-get-fired-from-department-of-agriculture/
http://wikiprobe.org/2013/03/23/i-work-with-wes-singletary-of-tallahassee/
http://wikiwarnings.com/stacey-lui-is-a-scammer-and-a-fraud/
http://wikiwarnings.com/luanne-stiles-is-a-fraud/
http://wikiwarnings.com/terry-a-burns-from-tomball-texas-2/
http://wikiwarnings.com/www-complaints-com-is-worthless/
http://wikiwarnings.com/mirisasha-a-velez-address-2/
http://wikiwarnings.com/journal-photographer-peter-carr/
http://wikiwarnings.com/stop-affirmative-action/
http://wikiwarnings.com/is-america-going-through-a-social-change/
http://wikiwarnings.com/who-is-elizabeth-van-duyne/
http://wikiwarnings.com/tony-mcdowell-florida-department-of-agriculture/
http://wikiwarnings.com/darren-chaker-banned-from-ca-lawsuits/
http://wikiwarnings.com/luann-stiles-department-of-agriculture/
http://wikiwarnings.com/steve-bradley-florida-department-of-agriculture/
http://wikiwarnings.com/adam-putnam-commissioner-department-of-agriculture/
http://wikiwarnings.com/charles-bronson-commissioner-florida-department-of-agriculture/
http://wikiwarnings.com/darren-chaker-counter-forensics-com/
http://wikiwarnings.com/sasha-velez-florida-department-of-agriculture/
http://wikiwarnings.com/wes-singletary/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/darren-chaker-banned-from-ca-lawsuits/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/charles-bronson-commissioner-florida-department-of-agriculture/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/adam-putnam-commissioner-department-of-agriculture/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/sasha-velez-florida-department-of-agriculture/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/wes-singletary/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/obamas-other-race-speech/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/landlord-stuart-scott-of-tallahassee/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/florida-department-of-agriculture-scam/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/barack-hussein-obama/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/president-barack-hussein-obama/
http://badrenterreport.com/jobs/stuart-scott-trailer-park/
http://badrenterreport.com/jobs/avi-zalman-is-a-liar/
http://badrenterreport.com/jobs/tenant-stephanie-elena-cannon/
http://www.ripoffreport.com/directory/Stephanie-Elena-Cannon.aspx
http://www.ripoffreport.com/raymond-o-camarena-j/real-estate-services/south-lebanon-ohio-575e1.htm
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/raymond-o-camarena-jr/
http://www.ripoffreport.com/steven-d-pierce-rebe/real-estate-services/ashland-oregon-380d5.htm
http://badrenterreport.com/jobs/landlords-steven-d-pierce-and-rebecca-t-pierce/
http://warning-notice.com/warning-notice/lazaro-a-gomez-and-lillian-ruiz/
http://www.ripoffreport.com/liberty-lines-llc/trucking-companies/miami-florida-6f10d.htm
http://badrenterreport.com/job-type/rentertenant/
http://www.reviewstalk.com/complaints-reviews/liberty-lines-llc-l34707.html
http://wikiwarnings.com/elliptigo-recalls-elliptical-cycles-due-to-fall-hazard/
Address lookup
canonical name skytrack.in
aliases
addresses 198.1.70.226
Domain Whois record
Queried whois.inregistry.in with “skytrack.in
Domain ID:D4323170-AFIN
Domain Name:SKYTRACK.IN
Created On:07-Jul-2010 14:59:49 UTC
Last Updated On:04-Jul-2013 04:23:43 UTC
Expiration Date:07-Jul-2014 14:59:49 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Net4India (R7-AFIN)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:N5R-2005565
Registrant Name:Nagendra A
Registrant Organization:SkyTrack Telematics
Registrant Street1:Bulding 2A,Mindspace Complex Hi-Tech City
Registrant City:Hyderabad
Registrant State/Province:Andhra Pradesh
Registrant Postal Code:500081
Registrant Country:IN
Registrant Phone:+91.4064603134
Registrant Email:nagendra.ammineni@gmail.com
Admin ID:N7A-2005557
Admin Name:Nagendra AA
Admin Organization:SkyTrack Telematics
Admin Street1:Bulding 2A,Mindspace Complex Hi-Tech City
Admin City:Hyderabad
Admin State/Province:Andhra Pradesh
Admin Postal Code:500081
Admin Country:IN
Admin Phone:+91.4064603134
Admin Email:nagendra.ammineni@gmail.com
Tech ID:N7T-2005557
Tech Name:Nagendra AA
Tech Organization:SkyTrack Telematics
Tech Street1:Bulding 2A,Mindspace Complex Hi-Tech City
Tech City:Hyderabad
Tech State/Province:Andhra Pradesh
Tech Postal Code:500081
Tech Country:IN
Tech Phone:+91.4064603134
Tech Email:nagendra.ammineni@gmail.com
Name Server:NS11.DOMAININDIA.ORG
Name Server:NS12.DOMAININDIA.ORG
DNSSEC:Unsigned
Network Whois record
Queried rwhois.unifiedlayer.com with “198.1.70.226
%rwhois V-1.5:000080:00 rwhois.unifiedlayer.com (by Unified Layer, V-1.0.0)
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID: NETBLK-UL.198.1.70.226/32
network:Auth-Area: 198.1.70.226/32
network:Network-Name: UL-198.1.70.226/32
network:IP-Network: 198.1.70.226/32
network:Organization: websitewelcome.com
network:Tech-Contact: abuse@websitewelcome.com
network:Admin-Contact: abuse@websitewelcome.com
network:Abuse-Contact: abuse@websitewelcome.com
network:Created: 20130103
network:Updated: 20130103
network:Updated-By: abuse@websitewelcome.com
ok
Queried whois.arin.net with “n 198.1.70.226
NetRange: 198.1.64.0 – 198.1.127.255
CIDR: 198.1.64.0/18
OriginAS: AS46606
NetName: UNIFIEDLAYER-NETWORK-11
NetHandle: NET-198-1-64-0-1
Parent: NET-198-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
RegDate: 2012-07-02
Updated: 2012-11-14
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-198-1-64-0-1
OrgName: Unified Layer
OrgId: BLUEH-2
Address: 1958 South 950 East
City: Provo
StateProv: UT
PostalCode: 84606
Country: US
RegDate: 2006-08-08
Updated: 2012-11-26
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/BLUEH-2
ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.unifiedlayer.com:4321
OrgTechHandle: NETWO5508-ARIN
OrgTechName: Network Operations
OrgTechPhone: +1-888-401-4678
OrgTechEmail: netops@unifiedlayer.com
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NETWO5508-ARIN
OrgNOCHandle: NETWO5508-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Network Operations
OrgNOCPhone: +1-888-401-4678
OrgNOCEmail: netops@unifiedlayer.com
OrgNOCRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NETWO5508-ARIN
OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE3581-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse Department
OrgAbusePhone: +1-888-401-4678
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@unifiedlayer.com
OrgAbuseRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/ABUSE3581-ARIN
DNS records
name class type data time to live
skytrack.in IN TXT v=spf1 ip4:198.154.252.120 a mx ip4:198.154.252.120 ?all 14400s (04:00:00)
skytrack.in IN MX
preference: 5
exchange: alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
14400s (04:00:00)
skytrack.in IN MX
preference: 10
exchange: aspmx2.googlemail.com
14400s (04:00:00)
skytrack.in IN MX
preference: 10
exchange: aspmx3.googlemail.com
14400s (04:00:00)
skytrack.in IN MX
preference: 20
exchange: skytrack.in
14400s (04:00:00)
skytrack.in IN MX
preference: 1
exchange: aspmx.l.google.com
14400s (04:00:00)
skytrack.in IN MX
preference: 5
exchange: alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
14400s (04:00:00)
skytrack.in IN SOA
server: ns1.onlinedomain.in
email: server@onlinedomain.in
serial: 2013042300
refresh: 86400
retry: 7200
expire: 3600000
minimum ttl: 86400
86400s (1.00:00:00)
skytrack.in IN NS ns2.onlinedomain.in 86400s (1.00:00:00)
skytrack.in IN NS ns1.onlinedomain.in 86400s (1.00:00:00)
skytrack.in IN A 198.1.70.226 14400s (04:00:00)
226.70.1.198.in-addr.arpa IN PTR jaka.onlinedomain.in 86400s (1.00:00:00)
70.1.198.in-addr.arpa IN SOA
server: ns1.unifiedlayer.com
email: abuse@unifiedlayer.com
serial: 2013010100
refresh: 28800
retry: 14400
expire: 3600000
minimum ttl: 300
86400s (1.00:00:00)
70.1.198.in-addr.arpa IN RRSIG
type covered: NSEC (47)
algorithm: RSA/SHA-1 (5)
labels: 5
original ttl: 10800 (03:00:00)
signature expiration: 2013-09-02 20:01:30Z
signature inception: 2013-08-23 20:01:30Z
key tag: 31943
signer’s name: 198.in-addr.arpa
signature:
(1024 bits)
6FA40EFD2F102A4BDDFDD3591632E23E
DDB23E4556F68C1DFA07474BEEF4E657
F6791E32B6B1952CCA114F99101167BD
3A2D696E5DD1FC84E463D8DC2EE78BF5
A3794370A0E8AFA5767CB9D6CCB234CF
9D221BDAAD62328289BEC41D62359186
BB985A9EC371C810CB96E0B75F9E7492
39CE1FB52318D2D125719EA9E6E2715F
10800s (03:00:00)
70.1.198.in-addr.arpa IN NSEC
next domain name: 71.1.198.in-addr.arpa
record types: NS RRSIG NSEC
10800s (03:00:00)
70.1.198.in-addr.arpa IN NS ns1.unifiedlayer.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
70.1.198.in-addr.arpa IN NS ns2.unifiedlayer.com 86400s (1.00:00:00)
— end —