AOL LLC v. Hai Sen Ding
Claim Number: FA0707001028330
Complainant is AOL LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Blake
R. Bertagna, of Arent Fox LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <aolchinese.com>, registered with Register.com, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 3, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 5, 2007.
On July 6, 2007, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <aolchinese.com> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, 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 July 6, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 26, 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@aolchinese.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 30, 2007 , pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
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 <aolchinese.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <aolchinese.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aolchinese.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, AOL LLC, is an internationally known interactive online service provider. Complainant uses its AOL mark in connection with the marketing and sales of its services. Complainant holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,977,731 issued June 4, 1996).
Respondent registered the <aolchinese.com> domain name on July 24, 2006. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website in Chinese that provides services similar to those provided by Complainant.
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 AOL 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 Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
Respondent’s <aolchinese.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark, as it simply adds the geographic term “chinese” onto the mark. Moreover, the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” to the mark does nothing to clarify the confusing similarity, as all domain names require the use of a top-level domain. With this in mind, the Panel finds that the <aolchinese.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. S G, D2001-0432 (WIPO May 22, 2001) (finding that the domain names <sunkistgrowers.org>, <sunkistgrowers.net> and <sunkistasia.com> are confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered SUNKIST mark and identical to the complainant’s common law SUNKIST GROWERS mark); see also Net2phone Inc. v. Netcall SAGL, D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <net2phone-europe.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because “the combination of a geographic term with the mark does not prevent a domain name from being found confusingly similar"); see also Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra, Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name <robohelp.com> is identical to the complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference"); see also Daedong-USA, Inc. v. O’Bryan Implement Sales, FA 210302 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003) (“Respondent's domain name, <kioti.com>, is identical to Complainant's KIOTI mark because adding a top-level domain name is irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel 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 <aolchinese.com> domain name. Once Complainant establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the instant case, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to 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 Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”).
Based on Respondent’s failure to respond, it can be presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <aolchinese.com> domain name. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the respondent never submitted a response or provided the panel with evidence to suggest otherwise). With this in mind, the Panel will examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent’s WHOIS information does not indicate, and there is nothing in the record to suggest, that Respondent is commonly known by the <aolchinese.com> domain name. Furthermore, Complainant has neither licensed nor authorized Respondent’s use of its AOL mark in any way. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
Respondent’s <aolchinese.com> domain name resolves to a
website that looks very similar to the Complainant’s website. Furthermore, Respondent’s website also
provides services similar to those provided by Complainant’s own website. The Panel presumes that Respondent is
benefitting commercially from this website.
Such use does not qualify as 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 Disney
Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003)
(finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to
attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of
hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of
goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain
names); see also
Accordingly, Policy ¶ 4 (a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the <aolchinese.com> domain name to attract Internet users to its website, presumably for commercial gain. Respondent is therefore capitalizing on the likelihood that users will confuse the disputed domain name as being affiliated with Complainant and its AOL mark. This indicates that Respondent registered and is using the <aolchinese.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
As Respondent’s website provides similar services through its <aolchinese.com> domain name as Complainant, the Panel finds that such use is a disruption of Complainant’s business. Therefore, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Schering Corp. v. NGS Enters., Ltd, FA 198013 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2003) (“The Panel declines to adopt a narrow interpretation of the term ‘competing,’ as urged by Respondent . . . The Panel agrees with Complainant that at least some confusion and/or diversion of consumers is likely here, even though Complainant's and Respondent's tablets address different medical issues.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business).
Complainant has submitted evidence that indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant’s mark, and in fact offered to enter into a business relationship with Complainant. This is evidence of Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AOL mark, and shows that Respondent registered and is using the <aolchinese.com> domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See eBay, Inc v. Progressive Life Awareness Network, D2001-0068 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2001) (finding bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent capitalized on the fame associated with the complainant’s EBAY mark and profited from it by diverting users seeking the complainant to the respondent’s website); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus the respondent registered the domain name in bad faith).
The Panel 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 <aolchinese.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., , Panelist
Dated: August 9, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum