InfoSpace, Inc. v. Domain Contact 1
Claim Number: FA0706001011861
Complainant is InfoSpace, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jan
Riggs, of InfoSpace, Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <dogpille.com>, registered with DotRegistrar.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On June 22, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 12, 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 postmaster@dogpille.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <dogpille.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOGPILE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <dogpille.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <dogpille.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, InfoSpace, Inc., is a provider of Internet
search, online directory, and distribution services for customers across North
America and
Respondent registered the <dogpille.com> domain name on
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 Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also 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.”).
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.
Complainant’s registration of the DOGPILE mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.").
Respondent’s <dogpille.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOGPILE mark, as it
simply adds an additional letter “l” to the mark. Previous panels have found, and this Panel so
finds, that the mere addition of a letter to a mark does not negate any
confusing similarity between the mark and a corresponding domain name. The addition of the generic top-level domain
“.com” is irrelevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, as a top-level domain is
a required element of all domain names.
Thus, the Panel finds that the <dogpille.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOGPILE mark pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Victoria’s
Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000)
(finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent
does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name
confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Am. Online, Inc. v.
Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000)
(finding that <oicq.net> and <oicq.com> are confusingly similar to
the complainant’s mark, ICQ); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady,
D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name
such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of
determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic
top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
analysis.”).
The Panel thus finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been
satisfied.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant has the initial burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <dogpille.com> domain name. However, once Complainant has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. In the present situation, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case under the Policy. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises the presumption that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names). Nevertheless, the Panel will now examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent’s WHOIS information does not indicate, and there
is nothing further in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known
by the <dogpille.com> domain
name. Furthermore, Complainant has not
authorized Respondent to use the DOGPILE mark for any purpose. This is evidence that Respondent lacks rights
and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <dogpille.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring
links to third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with
Complainant. The Panel presumes that
Respondent receives click-through fees from these links. Such use does not qualify as either a bona fide offering of goods or services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v.
Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003)
(“Respondent's use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark
to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant's business does
not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d
110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because the
respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion
with the complainant's website and marks, its use of the names was not in connection
with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use).
The Panel thus finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the <dogpille.com>
domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to the
websites of Complainant’s direct competitors.
Such use constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and is
evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Travant Solutions, Inc. v. Cole, FA 203177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Respondent
registered and used the domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii), because it is operating on behalf of a competitor of Complainant . .
.”); see
also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel,
FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Furthermore, the Panel presumes that Respondent benefits commercially when Internet users click on the links featured on the website that resolves from the <dogpille.com> domain name. Respondent is therefore taking advantage of the likelihood that users will confuse the disputed domain name as being affiliated with Complainant and its DOGPILE mark. This is evidence that Respondent registered and is using the <dogpille.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website).
The Panel thus finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been
satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dogpille.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: July 30, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum