In the recent domain name dispute of Provide Gifts, Inc. d/b/a RedEnvelope v. Privacy Ltd. Disclosed Agent for YOLAPT c/o Domain Admin FA1286921 (Nat. Arb. Forum, November 9, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.redenevelope.com. Complainant is the well known online gift retailer who maintains a web site at www.redenvelope.com. Respondent registered the disputed domain in August 2000 and failed to reply 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 Complainant had rights to the RED ENVELOPE mark through various trademark registrations. The Panel found that the disputed domain contained a misspelled version of Complainant’s RED ENVELOPE mark which was confusingly similar. The Panel found that Complainant satisfied Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
 
Moving to the second element, the Panel found that Red Envelope presented a prima facie case and that Respondent failed to submit a response. The Panel found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain, was using the domain to display links advertising third-party web sites in competition with Red Envelope, and engaged in typosquatting. All these factors culminated to a conclusion that Respondent lacked any rights or legitimate interests in the domain. The Panel found Red Envelope satisfied Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

In reviewing the third element, bad faith, the Panel began by explaining:

…Respondent intended to disrupt Complainant’s business and take advantage of Complainant’s goodwill surrounding its mark by displaying third-party links to Complainant’s competitors in the online retail industry for upscale gifts.  The Panel therefore finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). 

The Panel also relied on another bad faith factor and explained:

Additionally, Respondent has created a substantial likelihood of confusion as to the source and affiliation of the <redenevelope.com> domain name and the corresponding website.  Respondent benefits from such a likelihood of confusion, as it receives referral fees for the competitive upscale gifts advertisements that are displayed to the diverted Internet users.  The Panel finds this to be adequate evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 

The Panel didn’t stop there noting that the typosquating also qualified for proof of bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

Ultimately, the Panel found that Red Envelope satisfied all elements of the ICANN UDRP Policy  and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In a rarely reported section of the domain dispute world, one of DefendMyDomain’s friends had a successful result with the Czech Arbitration Court. Marc Randazza braved the realm of the CAC in a domain dispute, (available here) against Gu Bei, who is slowly becoming an infamous cybersquatter. The disputed domain was www.sublimedirectories.com. We recently reported on another case where Disney won against this same Respondent. (available here). In the instant dispute, Mr. Randazza represented Redfan of Panama, Inc., who runs an aggregation web site containing links and information about adult entertainment. Complainant owns the mark SUBLIME DIRECTORY, with rights dating back to 1996, and maintains a web site at www.sublimedirectory.com. Respondent registered the domain on August 18, 2009 and failed to respond to the Complaint.

The normal UDRP rules apply in the CAC, wherein Complainant is required to prove the presence of each of the following three elements to obtain the relief it has requested: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel, addressed the first element and found that Complainant had established rights to the mark SUBLIME DIRECTORY. The Panel found that the disputed domain was merely a plural form of the mark, thus it was confusingly similar. Moving to the second element, the Panel confirmed that the disputed domain contains content related to adult entertainment, which is similar to Complainant’s. The Panel found that Complainant had presented a prima facie case and Respondent’s failure to respond was sufficient to make a finding of lacking rights or legitimate interests. Lastly, the Panel reviewed whether the disputed domain was registered and used in bad faith. The Panel found that once the first two elements were proven and that the disputed domain was used in connection with a web site offering similar goods or services, that bad faith can be found. AS a result, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all elements of the Policy and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

A tip of the hat goes out to Randazza for braving the CAC.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Shoe Zone Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / DNS Admin (WIPO D2009-0946, September 2, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.shoezone.com. Complainant is a retailer and distributor of footwear throughout Ireland and the U.K. Complainant has multiple trademark registration, including one in the U.K. and a Community Trademark registration.  Complainant maintains a web site at www.shoezone.net. The disputed domain was registered in November 1998. According to the decision, the disputed domain has changed ownership at least three times since its original registration, with Respondent gaining ownership some time after June 2006. Complainant contends that sometime in May 2009 the disputed domain started to have advertising links to competitors of Complainant. Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint.

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant has the burden of proving the following:(i) That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) That the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel simply and quickly found that the disputed domain was identical to the mark and that Complainant has rights through its registrations to the mark. Moving to the second element, whether the Respondent had any rights or legitimate interests in the domain, the Panel noted that Complainant made a sufficient prima facie case. The Panel found that there was no suggestion of authorization by Complainant, no evidence of “commonly known” by proof of Respondent, and that the use was clearly commercial through use of the sponsored links. The Panel thus found that Complainant satisfied the second element as well.

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel noted that Respondent’s use of the domain as a landing page with sponsored links, without any explanation from Respondent, was sufficient proof of this element. The Panel also justified finding bad faith due to Respondent’s failure to respond and Respondent’s use of a privacy service.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant had proved all three elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

DefendMyDomain Commentary: Compare this case to the SHOE LAND case we previously blogged on (available here), Shoe Land Group LLC v. Development, Services c/o Telepathy Inc. (Nat. Arb Forum 1255365, June 9, 2009). Of course the facts are different, but one has to wonder whether a response by Respondent would have created a different outcome.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Davidoff & Cie SA v. Nicaragua Tobacco Imports, Inc. / Jorge Salazar (WIPO D2009-0923 August 20, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domains www.davidoffcigarcutter.com, www.davidoffhumidor.com and www.davidoffhumidors.com. Complainant is the well known tobacco products company with a presence for nearly 100 years. They maintain a web site at www.davidoff.com. Respondent failed to respond to the complaint. Complainant has numerous trademark registrations for the DAVIDOFF mark.

The Panel provided one of the shortest decisions yet.  First, the Panel found that the domain names all incorporated Complainant’s full mark with the addition of generic words related to Complainant’s business. Second, the Panel found that there was no evidence of any right or legitimate interest in the domain by Respondent. Lastly, the Panel addressed the issue of bad faith. The Panel found that due to the long existence of Complainant and its use of the marks, the disputed domains could only have been registered in bad faith. Many of the links on the pages of the domains led to links of direct competitors with Complainant.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all elements of the Policy and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Phantom Technologies LLC v. Seo Jae Woo FA1272159 (August 18, 2009), a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.iboss.com. Complainant develops and markets Internet web filtering technologies and equipment. Complainant began using its mark IBOSS in early 2002, but does not have a federal trademark registration. Complainant maintains relevant web sites at www.iphantom.com and www.myiboss.com. Respondent failed to respond to the complaint. The disputed domain was registered in December 2002.

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 although Complainant did not have a federal registration, the IBOSS mark was nonetheless used on over one hundred additional domain names and web sites. This coupled with Complainant’s long seven year history of use of the IBOSS mark was sufficient to establish common law rights. The Panel found that the disputed domain was identical to Complainant’s mark.

Moving to the second element, the Panel noted that it would review the evidence presented despite Complainant’s showing of a prima facie case. The Panel found:

Respondent’s <iboss.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring third party links unrelated to Complainant.  The Panel infers Respondent profits through click-through fees from the links to the third parties.  The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

The Panel also found that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain as shown through the Whois information.

Moving to the last element, bad faith, the Panel explained that the disputed domain resolved to a web with unrelated third party links. These links were presumed to result in profits from click through fees. The Panel found this use to be bad faith.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant satisfied all the elements and ordered the domain be TRANSFERRED.

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.

In the recent domain dispute decision of The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. QTK Internet c/o James M. van Johns FA1261364 (Nat. Arb. Forum, July 25, 2009) a three member Panel provided an interesting decision regarding www.aaa.net. Our friends over at Domain Name Wire provided an excellent review of the decision, so we suggest you read their version. (available here). We can already forsee that there will be many future disputes which cite to this decision.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of The Procter & Gamble Company v. Richard Jones FA 1266787 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 22, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.scopemouthwash.com. Complainant is the well known global products company with such famous brands as TIDE, PAMPERS, and CREST. They maintain a web site at www.pg.com and also have a web site for SCOPE at www.getclose.com. Respondent failed to respond to this 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 P&G has a trademark registration for the mark SCOPE in the U.S. and in other countries around the world. The Panel found that the term mouthwash was descriptive of P&G’s business. As a result the Panel found that the domain was confusingly similar to P&G’s mark.

Moving to the second element the Panel noted that P&G presented a prima facie case, and since Respondent failed to submit a response the Panel could assume there were no rights or legitimate interests. Regardless, the Panel still chose to review the evidence presented by P&G. Respondent’s web site resolved to a parked page with click-through links, for which the Panel presumed Respondent was gaining revenue. The Panel also found that the Whois information provided showed that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). For these reasons the Panel found P&G satisfied the second element.

Moving to the final element, bad faith, the Panel explained:

Complainant alleges that Respondent is using a domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCOPE mark, to attract Internet users to a website containing links, some of which resolve to websites of Complainant’s competitors.  The Panel concludes that appropriating Complainant’s SCOPE mark to divert Internet users is likely disrupting Complainant’s business and that such use constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). 

The Panel also found the bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) since Respondent intentionally attracted Internet users for financial gain. Ultimately, the Panel found that P&G satisfied all elements and ordered the TRANSFER of the domain.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Brayden T. Quinn a/k/a Brady Quinn v. Randy Darr FA1267051 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 20, 2009) a single member panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.bradyquinn.com. Many of you may know the Complainant as the famous Notre Dame quarterback (now playing for the Cleveland Browns).

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the 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 Complainant has filed for a service mark in April 2009, with rights dating back to December 2007. The Panel noted that since the the mark was only still subject to an application, a review of the common law rights standards would apply. The Panel found that “it is not inconceivable that the service mark already had acquired secondary meaning shortly after the first use of the service mark, as a result of the media attention and fame of Complainant.” The Panel found that Complainant established sufficient common law rights and that the domain was identical to Complainant’s mark.

In addressing the second element the Panel found that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain as shown in the Whois records. Additionally, the Panel noted:

Respondent is using the <bradyquinn.com> domain name to redirect Internet visitors to a parking site with links advertising products related to Complainant.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <bradyquinn.com> 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). 

The Panel also included discussion of an offer to sell the domain for $2,000.00. The Panel explained, “The Panel is of the opinion that this is evidence that Respondent has foregone any claim to rights or legitimate interests in the <bradyquinn.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”

The Panel found Complainant satisfied this element as well, and moved to the final element, bad faith. The Panel explained:

As Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name predates Complainant’s common law rights, the Panel finds that there is no possibility that Respondent could have registered, the <bradyquinn.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)….The fact that Complainant’s accomplishments as a sportsman have been featured in national media before the registration of the disputed domain name does not evidence bad faith registration, since Complainant does not adduce conclusive evidence that its unregistered personal name was being used for trade or commerce at the date of the registration of the disputed domain name, let aside that the Complainant established common law trademark rights in the name predating the registration of the disputed domain name.

As a result, the Panel found that Complainant failed to establish the final element, and DENIED an order to transfer the domain.

DefendMyDomain Commentary: It is unclear why the Panel did not address the offer to sell factor in the bad faith section. This is another example of the unsecure world of famous persons names and domain disputes. We question again, knowing the facts of the case, why Complainant didn’t choose three Panelists.

In the recent domain name dispute decision of Pfizer Inc. v. Igor Shorop FA1266024 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.viagra.us. Phizer is the famous pharmaceutical company who markets and sells well-known erection pill VIAGRA. Complainant maintains web sites at www.pfizer.com and www.viagra.com. Respondent failed to respond to the dispute.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith

In addressing the first element the Panel explained “The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s VIAGRA mark in its entirety with the addition of the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us.”  The Panel concludes that the addition of the ccTLD is insignificant, rendering Respondent’s <viagra.us> domain name identical to Complainant’s VIAGRA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(I).” The Panel found that Pfizer satisfied the first element.

Moving to the second element, whether the Respondent had any rights or legitimate interests in the domain, the Panel noted that Respondent’s failure to respond raises a presumption of lacking such rights. There was no evidence that Respondent owned any trademark rights or was commonly known by the disputed domain. Additionally the Panel found:

The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring click-through links and advertisements, which divert Internet users to the websites of Complainant’s competitors.  The Panel presumes that Respondent is generating revenue from such use and therefore finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv), respectively.

 Moving to the final element, the Panel found that Respondent’s use of click-through fee links was evidence of bad faith. Additionally the Panel found that since the domain name was identical this was also evidence of bad faith.  

 Ultimately, the Panel found Phizer satisfied all three elements and ordered the TRANSFER of the disputed domain.