DECISION
DNA Limited and Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America v. n/a
Claim Number: FA0110000100568
PARTIES
Complainant is
DNA Limited and Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America Ltd., West Amherst, NY
(“Complainant”) represented by Michael
Berchou, of Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber LLP. Respondent is n/a, Canada (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED
DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dunlop-tire.com>, registered with BulkRegister.
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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National
Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on October 12, 2001; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 15, 2001.
On October 19, 2001, BulkRegister confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <dunlop-tire.com>
is registered with BulkRegister and that Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. BulkRegister has verified
that Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister 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 October 22, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and
Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline of November 12, 2001 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
postmaster@dunlop-tire.com by e-mail.
Having received no Response from Respondent, using
the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement
Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent
Default.
On November 29, 2001 pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum
appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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.” 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be
transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The <dunlop-tire.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DUNLOP mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
the <dunlop-tires.com> domain
name.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name in
bad faith.
B. Respondent
No Response was received.
FINDINGS
Since 1987, Complainant has
had the rights to the DUNLOP trademark.
The mark is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the
Canadian Trademark Office. The DUNLAP
mark has been used continuously by Complainant and its predecessor companies in
relation to the sale and manufacture of automobile tires. The mark has become famous based on its
widespread use.
Since 1995, Complainant and
its predecessor have had a presence on the Internet as the owner of
<dunloptire.com>.
Respondent registered the
<dunlop-tire.com> domain name
on January 3, 2001. Respondent uses the
domain name to redirect Internet users to a pornography website. The website to which Internet users are
redirected to is <cyclop.net>.
When the user is brought to this site it is unable to close the window
because the closing function has been disabled and triggers many different
windows to open up to various other pornographic websites even as the Internet
user attempts to sign-off the Internet.
Respondent is paid for each user that is diverted to these pornography
websites.
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
the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a)
and 15(a) of the Rules.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly
Similar
Complainant, through
registration and continuous use has established rights in the DUNLOP mark. Furthermore, Respondent's <dunlop-tire.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant's DUNLOP mark. Respondent's domain name incorporates the entirety of
Complainant's mark and merely adds the generic term "tire" and a
hyphen to separate the two words. The
addition of a generic term to Complainant's mark is not enough for Respondent
to create a distinctive mark. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin)
Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026
(WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in
dispute contains the identical mark of the Complainant combined with a generic
word or term). Moreover, the use of a
hyphen does not create a distinctive mark.
See Nintendo Of Am. Inc. v. This
Domain Is For Sale, D2000-1197 (WIPO Nov. 1, 2000) (finding
<game-boy.com> identical and confusingly similar the Complainant’s GAME
BOY mark, even though the domain name is a combination of two descriptive words
divided by a hyphen).
The Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate
Interests
Respondent has failed to
come forward with a response and therefore it is presumed that Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the <dunlop-tire.com> domain name.
See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v.
Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that
Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have
no legitimate interest in the domain names).
Furthermore, when Respondent
fails to submit a response the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in
favor of Complainant. See 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”).
There is no evidence on the
record, and Respondent has not come forward to establish that it is commonly
known by the <dunlop-tire.com>
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone
Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed
domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair
use); see also CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v.
LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent
has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the
<twilight-zone.net> domain name since Complainant had been using the
TWILIGHT ZONE mark since 1959).
Respondent is intentionally
diverting Internet users to its website for its own commercial gain and is
therefore not making legitimate noncommercial, or fair use of the disputed
domain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Kosmea Pty Ltd. v. Krpan, D2000-0948
(WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent has
an intention to divert consumers of Complainant’s products to Respondent’s site
by using Complainant’s mark); see also
Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to
confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain
name).
Respondent has linked the
disputed domain names to various pornographic websites. It has been found that this type of use does
not create rights or legitimate interests.
See National Football League
Prop., Inc., et al. v. One Sex Entm't. Co., D2000-0118 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000)
(finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
domain names "chargergirls.com" and "chargergirls.net"
where the Respondent linked these domain names to its pornographic website); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela,
FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that infringing on another's
well known mark to provide a link to a pornographic site is not a legitimate or
fair use).
The Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad
Faith
The <dunlop-tire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant's mark and the Internet user will likely believe that there is an
affiliation between Respondent and Complainant. Registration of the <dunlop-tire.com>
domain name despite confusing similarity is evidence of bad faith. See
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding
bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the respondent
could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false
impression of association with the Complainant”).
Furthermore, because of the
famous and distinctive nature of Complainant's DUNLOP mark, Respondent is
thought to have been on notice of the existence of Complainant's mark at the
time Respondent registered the infringing <dunlop-tire.com> domain name. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Apr. 17, 2000) (evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge
of commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Victoria's Secret et al v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat Arb.
Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that, in light of the notoriety of Complainants'
famous marks, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the BODY BY
VICTORIA marks at the time she registered the disputed domain name and such
knowledge constitutes bad faith).
Respondent has linked the
confusingly similar <dunlop-tire.com>
domain name to a pornographic website for commercial gain. This conduct is evidence of bad faith. See
MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that
association of confusingly similar domain name with pornographic website can
constitute bad faith); see also Youtv,
Inc. v. Alemdar, FA 94243 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad
faith where Respondent attracted users to his website for commercial gain and
linked his website to pornographic websites); see also CCA Indus., Inc. v.
Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (finding that “this association
with a pornographic web site can itself constitute bad faith”).
The Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three
elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the
requested relief shall be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered
that the domain name <dunlop-tire.com>
be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY
(Ret.)
Dated: December 3, 2001
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page