Big Law Firm Greenberg Traurig…Big Win…Did You Expect Anything Less?
In the recent domain name dispute decision of Greenberg Traurig, LLP and Greenberg Traurig of New York, P.C. and Greenberg Traurig, P.A. v. Louis Zweifach FA1271922 (Nat. Arb. Forum, August 13, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.greenbergtraurigharassment.com. We all know who the law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP is, so I won’t go into much detail about them. Complainant has a registered mark for GREENBERG TRAURIG and the decision notes that with over 1,800 attorneys worldwide, the law firm specializes in harassment, intellectual property and business law. If you want more information go to their web site at www.gtlaw.com. The respondent failed to respond to 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.
In addressing the first element, the Panel noted that the domain name incorporated all of Complainant’s mark, and merely added the term harassment.
The term “harassment” refers to employment law and harassment lawsuits and thus, is descriptive of Complainant’s business. The Panel concludes that these alterations are insufficient to negate a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel found Complainant satisfied the first element.
Moving to the second element, whether Respondent had any right or legitimate interest in the domain, the Panel found that Complainant set out a prima facie case in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Since Respondent failed to reply this Panel noted that they may infer a lack of rights or legitimate interests. However, as most Panels often do, they still reviewed the evidence. The Panel explained:
The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying click-through links that further resolve to the websites of Complainant’s competitors in the legal services industry. Complainant contends , and the Panel agrees, that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website displaying links to competing law firms is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), respectively.
The Panel also found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain after reviewing the Whois records. As a result, the Panel found Complainant satisfied the second element as well.
Moving to the last element, the Panel noted that using the disputed domain to resolve to a web site which had click-through links was bad faith since they were in direct competition with Complainant. The use of the domain diverted consumers and disrupted Complainant’s business. The Panel found that Respondent was presumably collecting fees from the click-through links and such profit was also considered bad faith.
Ultimately, the Panel ordered the domain to be TRANSFERRED.
Tags: No Response, Parked Pages, Pay-Per-Click, Transferred, Whois data
