Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. v. Nanci Nette / Name Management Group
Claim Number: FA2005001897926
Complainant is Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. (“Complainant”), represented by ROBIC, LLP, Canada. Respondent is Nanci Nette / Name Management Group (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <poirnhub.com>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 27, 2020; the Forum received payment on May 27, 2020.
On May 28, 2020, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <poirnhub.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC 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 3, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 23, 2020 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@poirnhub.com. Also on June 3, 2020, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 25, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it operates numerous websites featuring adult-oriented content. Over the years, and through efforts and acquisitions, Complainant and its corporate affiliates have gained a strong position in the online adult entertainment market, where Internet traffic, including its channeling and control, represents a crucial aspect. One of the keys for Complainant to succeed is its business model. Complainant has contributed to the advent of user-generated adult video portals that aggregate content from a variety of sources, where users can watch, like, share, comment and upload their own videos. Given that several websites operated under Complainant’s brands are free of charge, it causes a very important volume of web traffic (i) to such free of charge websites, as well as (ii) to Complainant’s advertisers and subscription-based websites where the free of charge websites lead to. For instance, in respect of Complainant’s flagship brand PORNHUB, in the year 2019 alone (i) 42 billion visits were made to the PORNHUB.com website (which is 8.5 billion more than the previous year); (ii) the average of daily visitors was 115 million; (iii) more than 39 billion searches were conducted during the year by users worldwide. Complainant has rights in the PORNHUB mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2012.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its PORNHUB mark as it merely misspells the mark by adding an “i” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor has Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is merely diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to a site containing pay-per-click links and offering the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out of pocket costs. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent is attempting to sell the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent is attempting to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users to third party websites that may present a false impression of affiliation with Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by diverting Internet users to competing websites. Respondent is typosquatting. Finally, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PORNHUB mark at the time of registration. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark PORNHUB and uses it to market adult entertainment services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2012.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name after that date.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website displays competing pay-per-click advertising links and offers the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out of pocket costs.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name merely misspells Complainant’s mark by adding an “i” and the “.com” gTLD. Introducing a spelling error into a recognizable mark and adding a gTLD may not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Western Alliance Bancorporation v. James Brandon, FA 1783001 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“Respondent’s <westernalliancebcorporation.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WESTERN ALLIANCE BANCORPORATION mark because it merely appends the gTLD ‘.info’ to a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <poirnhub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark PORNUB mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the Respondent as “Nanci Nette / Name Management Group”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displays competing pay-per-click links and offers the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out of pocket costs. These do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
According to 3.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), in general, where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent.
The date that Complainant puts forward for its registered trademark rights is 2012. According to the WHOIS, the disputed domain name was registered in 2007.
According to 3.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), panels have found that the mere renewal of a domain name registration by the same registrant is insufficient to support a finding of registration in bad faith.
Hence the Panel must determine whether or not the current registrant had registered the disputed domain name prior to Complainant acquiring its trademark rights. Complainant alleges, and provides evidence to show, that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2017, it having been previously registered by unrelated parties. Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent did not merely renew a previous registration and it finds that Respondent’s registration is a new registration for the purposes of the instant proceedings. That registration took place after the Complainant acquired its trademark rights. Therefore, the registration may have been made in bad faith in the sense of the Policy.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by diverting Internet users to a site offering competing pay-per-click hyperlinks. Registering a disputed domain name to offer competing pay-per-click links may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See HEB Grocery Company, LP v. Nikolay Schastenko / SEO Ukraine, FA 1789019 (Forum July 3, 2018) (“Complainant provides screenshots of the domain name’s resolving website and claims, without contradiction that Respondent commercially benefits from an “Affiliate Program” in which users are redirected to job-oriented websites such as “Snagajob” and “Monster.” Therefore, Respondent’s use of the <hebcareers.net> domain name to attract users for commercial gain demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, also as already noted, Respondent is attempting to sell the disputed domain name for a price in excess of out of pocket costs. Offering a disputed domain name for sale may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Airbnb, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1821386 (Forum Jan. 10, 2019) (“Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <airbnbb.com> domain name in bad faith by offering it for sale. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Staples, Inc. v. lin yanxiao, FA1505001617686 (Forum June 4, 2015) (“Respondent’s offering to sell the disputed domain name to a third party (in this case, the general public) supports a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Finally, Respondent is typosquatting and this act is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Introducing common spelling error into a disputed domain name that take advantage of Internet user’s inadvertent typographical errors when entering a domain name may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. IS / ICS INC, FA 16070016833 (Forum Aug. 11, 2016) (“Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant, such as Respondent, deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name. The conniving registrant wishes and hopes that Internet users will inadvertently type the malformed trademark or read the domain name and believe it is legitimately associated with the target trademark. In doing so, wayward Internet users are fraudulently directed to a web presence controlled by the confusingly similar domain name’s registrant.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <poirnhub.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 26, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page