Investools Inc v. Ideas & Business, Managerlab
Claim Number: FA0706001002793
Complainant is Investools Inc (“Complainant”), represented by Paul
C. Van Slyke, of Locke Liddell & Sapp, 600 Travis,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <investools.net>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 11, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 11, 2007.
On June 11, 2007, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <investools.net> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 13, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 3, 2007 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
A Response was received in electronic format only on June 20, 2007. Because no hard copy of the Response was received, the National Arbitration Forum deemed the Response to be deficient pursuant to Supplemental Rule 5(b). The Forum notified Respondent of the deficiency on June 20, but did not receive any further submissions from Respondent.
On July 9, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Complainant and its predecessors have operated investor information services and training courses under the name Investools since 1995. Complainant holds various trademark registrations for its INVESTOOLS mark on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the earliest of which was registered in 1997 and was first used in commerce in 1995. Complainant maintains a website at the domain name <investools.com>, which was registered in 1995 and has been in continuous use since that date. Complainant describes itself as “a leader in investor education,” and claims that it has “graduated over 292,000 students” over the years. Complainant further states that its name is well known to the public in the United States, as evidenced by national media attention, and that its name had international reach as early as 1998, based upon, inter alia, its mention in an Italian Internet magazine in that year. Complainant claims to have spent at least $8 million for marketing and advertising of its services in each year since 2001, and states that its annual revenues for each of those years exceeded $50 million.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <investools.net> is confusingly similar to its INVESTOOLS mark. Complainant further alleges that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and in support thereof states that Respondent’s only use of the domain name is in conjunction with a domain parking service. Complainant asserts that Respondent does not operate a business under the Investools name and is not known by the name; that Respondent’s actions cause Internet traffic to be improperly diverted from Complainant’s website; and that Respondent’s interest in the disputed domain name derives from its awareness of Complainant’s mark and associated goodwill. Finally, Complainant alleges based upon the preceding assertions that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Osvaldo Carrillo submitted a brief statement via electronic mail on Respondent’s behalf, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence. In that statement, Carrillo states that he is also the registrant of the domain name <investools.es>, registered since August 2003, and that he is a partner in a Spanish company named “Investools S.L.” Carillo further states that the disputed domain name “belongs to me and I still beleave [sic] that we are free to register the domains names .com .net.”
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <investools.net> is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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;
(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.
The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered mark, but for the addition of the “.net” top-level domain suffix. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the burden therefore shifts to Respondent to rebut this showing with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Am. Online, Inc. v. Thricovil, FA 638077 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 22, 2006). Respondent has failed to introduce any evidence that it is in fact known by the name Investools, and therefore fails to rebut Complainant’s prima facie showing. Under the circumstances, the Panel concludes that Complainant has met its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Under Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence that a domain name registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark serves as evidence of bad faith. In the Panel’s view, the evidence supports an inference that Respondent knew of Complainant and its mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name for the purpose of profiting from Complainant’s mark by creating a likelihood of confusion. The Panel therefore concludes that Complainant has met its burden of proving that Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <investools.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 17, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum