National Arbitration Forum
DECISION
Aastra Technologies Limited v. Darian Adel
Claim Number: FA0708001065518
PARTIES
Complainant is Aastra Technologies Limited (“Complainant”),
represented by Julie Hyland, 2811 Internet Blvd., Frisco, TX
75034-1851. Respondent is Darian Adel
(“Respondent”), represented by Dennis F. Gleason, of Carella,
Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <shopaastra.com>,
registered with Namesdirect.
PANEL
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.
Carol M. Stoner, Esq. as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National
Arbitration Forum electronically on August 17, 2007; and the National
Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 20, 2007.
On August 17, 2007, Namesdirect confirmed by e-mail to
the National Arbitration Forum that the <shopaastra.com> domain
name is registered with Namesdirect and that the Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Namesdirect has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Namesdirect 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 August 23, 2007, the National Arbitration Forum
informed the Complainant that the Complaint was deficient and could be
corrected by amending the Complaint to supply a telephone number for
Complainant’s authorized representative; by amending the Complaint to list the
Respondents’ name and contact information as verified by the Registrar; and by
supplying a table of contents for all evidence attached, in compliance with
ICANN Rule 3(b)(xv). Complainant rectified these
deficiencies in a timely fashion by submitting Amended Complaint on August 28,
2007.
On August 29, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and
Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline of September 18, 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@shopaastra.com
by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be
complete on September 18, 2007.
An Additional Submission from Complainant was timely
received on September 24, 2007.
On September 28, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Carol M. Stoner, Esq., as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name <shopaastra.com>
be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant, Aastra Technologies Limited, is the
global developer and marketer
of Internet Protocol (IP)-based, as well as traditional
communications networking products and systems under various brands and
trademarks, including the Complainant’s trademarked name. The relevant trademarks
and servicemarks are as follows:
AASTRA (Reg. No. 2,962,721) registered under Class 09
for telephones and telecommunications; and in Class 037 for the installation of
computer network, telephone and computers; and repair and maintenance of telephones,
facsimile machines and computer hardware;
AASTRA (Design plus words, Reg. No. 2,922,720) registered under Class 09 for telephones and
telecommunications; and in Class 037 for the installation of computer network,
telephone and computers; and repair and maintenance of telephones, facsimile
machines and computer hardware; and
AASTRA (Design plus words, Reg. No. 2,962,722)
registered under Class 09 for telephones and telecommunications; and in Class
037 for the installation of computer network, telephone and computers; and
repair and maintenance of telephones, facsimile machines and computer hardware.
The Complainant, directly and through its subsidiary
companies, offers products that include a full range of VoIP solutions
including communications servers, gateways, telephone terminals and advanced
software applications for business and residential markets. Complainant alleges
that it ranks 3rd in the European Enterprise telephony market.
Since 1995, the Complainant has expended significant
resources in the continuous advertising and marketing of the AASTRA mark in
connection with its products and services, through the media of telephone
communications, direct advertising and the internet. As a result of Complainants’ twelve (12)
years of extensive and continuous
use, the AASTRA
marks have acquired commercial strength and goodwill and have
consequently come to immediately identify the Complainant’s products and
services sold under its marks.
The Complainant owns the domain names <aastra.com> and <aastraintecom.com> which
provide information to customers regarding the AASTRA brand.
On or about March 27, 2004, the Respondent registered
the domain name <shopaastra.com> without authorization from the
Complainant. The Respondent has used
this website to operate an extensive online market for the sale of AASTRA
products. Complainant alleges that its’ General Counsel and sales/marketing
heads have received numerous e-mails messages from consumers and employees of
the Complainant concerning the domain name and its’ corresponding website.
On or about October 31, 2005, the Complainant and
Respondent attempted to resolve
the issue related to the use of AASTRA’s mark by
executing a Trademark License Agreement (“Agreement”). Respondent’s Vice President of Sales, Daniel
Peykar, executed the Agreement and agreed to provide appropriate disclaimers on
the website. Respondent complied with disclaimer obligations, though via
inconspicuous size, but failed to comply with the stylized trademark form
requirements, and thus allegedly breached the Agreement.
On or about May 23, 2007, the Complainant’s Corporate
Counsel transmitted a Cease
and Desist Letter to Daniel Peykar. Thereafter, Complainant’s Corporate Counsel
returned Peykar’s voice mail message, but never heard back from Respondent.
Complainant states that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to their own,
in that their marks are valid, and that the only
difference between the disputed names is Respondents insertion of the generic
term “shop.”
Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in disputed name, in that the disputed and confusingly
similar name pre-supposes an affiliation with the Complainant, despite the
inconspicuous disclaimers, and is used to lure Internet users seeking
Complainant’s site, to Respondent’s
site.
Complainant further states that, there is no evidence
that Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, nor
that Respondent has acquired any trademarks or servicemarks in the domain
name.
B. Respondent
Respondent Darian Adel is a principal of 3D Telecom
LLC (“3D”). Respondent alleges that
through his company he has been using the domain name <shopaastra.com>
with the full and complete knowledge of Complainant, and therefore has a
legitimate interest in the domain name.
3D Telecom is in the business of selling and
purchasing communications equipment of various manufacturers.
As part of its plan to sell AASTRA telecommunications
equipment, 3D Telecom, through Adel, registered the domain name <shopaastra.com>
in approximately November, 2003. In
approximately 2004, 3D Telecom began selling AASTRA telecommunications
equipment as an independent vendor.
Respondent states that the sole purpose of registering
the domain name was to set up a web page that would be devoted exclusively to
the sale of genuine, new and used
AASTRA telecommunications equipment, and further, that
from 2004 to the present,
3D Telecom has advertised and sold only AASTRA products
on <shopaastra.com>.
Sometime in 2005, a sales representative of
Complainant contacted Respondent,
offering a trademark license, covering various AASTRA trademarks.
Through these negotiations, Respondent states that it was apparent that
Complainant was not only aware of the <shopaastra.com> domain
name, but also that Complainant never asserted that <shopaastra.com> was a mark of Complainant, or that it should
be assigned to Complainant. Complainant’s only observation regarding the
website was, that a disclaimer be added to the top of
each page. Respondent asserts that this
request was honored and remains in effect today.
Respondent further asserts that Complainant has no
interest in the mark <shopaastra.com> and that the use of the
modifier “shop” prevents the mark from
being confusingly similar to Complainants’s mark.
Respondent further states that Complainant’s analysis of merely comparing the
domain name to the mark, constitutes
a “cramped view” of the law, and states that the
“preferred view” of the law should be
a review of not only the actual domain name, but the
actual website itself.
Respondent states that the purpose of the disputed
website is to cleverly promote AASTRA’s telecommunications products.
Respondent states that Respondent is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Complainant’s
statements regarding its purported trademarks.
Respondent responds to Complainants’s allegation that
Respondent has no legitimate
interest in the domain name as follows:
Respondent states that the two disclaimers on each of
its web pages are sufficient to dispel the presumption that a user will presume
affiliation with the Complainant, on the basis of the domain name, alone.
Complainant never identified with particularity what
marks of Complainant were improperly used.
Further, Respondent has been known in respect to
<shopaastra.com>.
Respondent states, that based upon inquiries of his
customers, that “on a regular basis the
customers have said that they have been referred (to <shopaastra.com>)
by representatives of Complainant.”
Respondent alleges to have sold bona fide goods,
prior to the dispute regarding the domain name.
Respondent asserts that it is making fair use of the
name to sell AASTRA products. Respondent states that while Complainant asserts
that it has received “numerous communications from customers and employees of
Complainant,” the absence of a single testimonial or detailed certification,
should lead to the inference that such information either does not exist, or
that it is not competent to sustain the allegations.
Respondent states that the domain name was registered
in good faith, in that Respondent did not register it for the purpose of
selling it to the Complainant; nor to prevent Complainant from registering it;
nor to disrupt the business of a competitor. Respondent states that Complainant
has offered no proof that, by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has
intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s
marks. Disclaimers disavowing
affiliation with Complainant have been running since 2005, and underscore
Respondent’s lack of intent to act in bad faith.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant submitted a timely Additional Submission
on September 24, 2007. In said
Submission, Complainant continues its argument as follows:
Complainant states that it has established all three
elements required under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and
generally denies and rejects any allegation or statement that supports
Respondents’ opinions in controversion of same.
Complainant further rebuts Respondent’s claim that
they only sell AASTRA products
on <shopaastra.com> by its Exhibit 7,
printed from Respondent’s website on September 21, 2007, showing three pages of
Plantronics products being sold on the website, which products are neither
AASTRA products, nor are they acquired through AASTRA.
Complainant pro-offers Exhibit 8, thorough which it
purports to show that the majority of the products sold on the <shopaastra.com>
website cannot be obtained through AASTRA’s supply chain, and to show that products
sold through AASTRA’s supply chain are improperly referenced on the <shopaasatra.com>
website.
Complainant states that the motive for entering into
the License Agreement was not to legitimize Respondent’s current actions; but
to assert its own intellectual property rights; and that it would have pursued
assignment of the disputed domain name, if Respondent had not executed the
Agreement.
Complainant continues to assert that the disputed
domain is confusingly similar to its own marks and advises the Panel not to
adopt Respondents’ cramped view, but to adopt such findings as have been
adopted by previous Panels, which findings hold that where a common prefix or
suffix is added to a trademark, that such an addition, “does little if
anything, to avoid the possibility of confusion,” as cited by
such as their pro-offered 3M
case, i.e. , Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing v.
JonLR, D2001-0428 (WIPO May 30, 2001). Complainant further directs the
Panel to various cases which hold that “the mere addition of the term “shop”
does not reduce the likelihood of confusion under Policy 4(a)(i).” See for example,
Victoria’s Secret et al v. Hostdifferent.net d/b/a/ Hostmaster,
FA0101000096500 (Nat. Arb. Forum February 28, 2001).
Complainant seeks to further propels
its’ position that Respondent has no inherent rights nor interest in the <shopaastra.com>
name as follows:
Complainant rebuts Respondent’s “muddled” argument
that the disclaimers were the propulsion fueling the e-mails and the License
Agreement, and in its place, asserts that protection of Complainant’s marks was
the propelling force for same.
Respondent offers no evidence that Respondent was conducting business
under the <shopastra.com> name, prior to registration of said
name. Complainant states that it is not proper to base
a “fair use” defense argument in an obviously
commercial venue. Further, Complainant claims that a respondent is not making a
fair use of a domain name when a respondent is using a complainant’s trademark
in its entirety, and cites such as Compaq Information Technologies
Group, L.P. v. Shopcompaq, FA 0109000099672, (Nat.
Arb. Forum October 17, 2001) (finding that respondent’s use of complainant’s
mark in its entirety to suggest a connection to complainant is not a fair use).
Complainant further contends that Respondent’s claim
to be selling bona fide goods
should be disregarded by Panel, as Respondent is employing the <shopastra.com>
domain name to sell products directly in competition with Complainant, and that
such actions also have the potential to tarnish Complainant’s reputation.
Complainant points the Panel to a line of decisions (such
as, Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. MH2 & Associates,
FA0102000096775 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 3, 2001) (hereafter referred to as
“Dollar Financial Group”) which holds that “it has been established in other UDRP
proceedings that the use of a confusingly similar website in connection with
competing services is not a “bona fide” use under the policy”. Here, Respondent is competing with
Complainant by selling “like new” AASTRA products, and by selling products with
similar functionality. Complainant,
therefore extols that the Respondent is clearly not operating
<shopaastra.com> in a manner protected under ¶4(c)(i)
of the Policy.
Complainant, in its Additional Submission, makes the
following new arguments in
support of its position that the Respondent has registered
and used the name in question in bad faith:
Complainant
states that if Respondent did not intend to act in bad faith as defined in
the Policy ¶4(b)(iii) and (iv), that Respondent would
have just sold the telecommunications products under 3D Telecom’s site <3dtelecom.com>
or AdComm Technologies’ site <adcommtech.com>. Complainant
attaches Exhibits 11 and 12 to show that AASTRA products are prominently
displayed for sale on these web sites, along with products from other
telecommunications companies.
Complainant rebuts Respondent’s contention that a
disclaimer is sufficient to evidence
a good faith use of the domain name. Complainant sites the seminal case of Ciccone
v. Parisi (Madonna.com), D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2000) (finding
that “[r]espondent’s use of a disclaimer on its website is insufficient to
avoid a finding of bad faith. First, the disclaimer may be ignored or
misunderstood by Internet users. Second,
a disclaimer does nothing to dispel initial interest confusion that is
inevitable from Respondent’s actions. Such confusion is a basis for finding a
violation of Complainant’s rights”).
Complainant lastly asserts as evidence of bad faith,
that given the uniqueness of the AASTRA mark, that
there is no plausible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the domain
name <shopaastra.com> other than to trade on the goodwill of the
AASTRA name. Complainant cites in
support of this proposition, the case of Compaq Information Technologies
Group, L.P. v. Shopcompaq.com, FA0109000099672, (Nat.
Arb. Forum October 17, 2001) (finding that there is no plausible explanation
for Respondent’s registration of the domain name <shopcompaq.com> other
than to trade on the goodwill of the COMPAQ name).
FINDINGS
Complainant has established that the domain name <shopaastra.com> registered by Respondent is
confusingly similar to the AASTRA and AASTRA Design plus Words registered
trademarks and servicemarks of Complainant.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
the domain name <shopaastra.com>.
Respondent has registered the domain name <shopaastra.com
> in bad faith.
As such, the Panel finds that the relief requested by
Complainant shall be granted,
and accordingly, the domain name <shopaastra.com>
shall be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
DISCUSSION
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 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 asserts rights in the AASTRA mark through
registration of the mark
(Reg. No. 2,962,721) with the
Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AASTRA mark, in that it merely
adds the generic term “shop,” as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)
“.com” to Complainant’s protected AASTRA mark.
The Panel finds that the mere addition of the generic term “shop” and a gTLD to an
otherwise identical mark fails to sufficiently distinguish the domain name from
the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
L.L. Bean , Inc. v. Shopstar Network, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum, September 14, 2000)
(SHOPLLBEAN.COM is confusingly similar to L.L. Bean) and Westfield Corp. v. Hobbs,
D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <westfieldshopping.com>
domain name confusingly similar because the
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in
support of its allegations, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to
show that it does possess rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(ii). See
Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding
that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the
respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion
because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the
respondent”); 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 disputed domain name resolves to a page offering information on various networking products
and systems, including the Complainant's products. It is a fair presumption
that Respondent financially benefits from its diversionary use of the disputed
domain name. Accordingly, the Panel
finds that Respondent’s use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet
users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for
Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Am. Online,
Inc. v. Advanced Membership Servs., Inc., FA 180703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
26, 2003) (“Respondent's registration and use of the <gayaol.com> domain
name with the intent to divert Internet users to Respondent's website suggests
that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii).”).
In its Additional Submission, Complainant offers
credible proof that Respondent’s claim that Respondent only sells Complainant’s
merchandise on the website associated with the
disputed domain name, is not true. Complainant further avouches and demonstrates
that Respondent
sells merchandise that directly competes with Complainant’s business on the
website associated with the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel is persuaded to find
that Respondent’s use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate
non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Power of Choice Holding Co., FA 621292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb.
16, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of domain names confusingly
similar to the complainant’s WAL-MART mark to divert Internet users seeking the
complainant’s goods and services to websites competing with the complainant did
not constitute 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 Expedia, Inc. v.
Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the
respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet
users to a website featuring links to travel services that competed with the
complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Respondent has not offered any evidence that it was
conducting business under the <shopaastra.com> domain name, prior
to the registration of the domain name, nor that it was commonly known by the
disputed domain name. Furthermore, a
review of Respondent’s WHOIS registration information reveals that the
registrant of the <shopaastra.com> domain name is “Darian Adel.” The Panel therefore, finds that Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name
‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration
information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>]
domain name.”); 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.”).
Complainant’s Trademark License Agreement granted
limited rights to Respondent,
to use AASTRA trademarks, tradenames and service marks,
solely in association with marketing and promotion activities, for certain
Aastra products, using Licensed Materials, as may be provided by AASTRA or its
authorized distributors. The import of this authorized use was to be able to
name goods in the text of a web page by their brand or trademark names; not
to deceive the
ultimate customer into the belief that the reseller was affiliated with, or
authorized by the producer. This permitted inference is buttressed by the fact
of Complainant’s insistence that Respondent use non-affiliation disclaimers on
its web pages. Respondent’s use of licensor’s trademarks as a domain name “crosses
a line” and clearly exceeds the fair scope of permitted authority for use of
the trademark. See
Thomas & Betts Int’l v. Power Cabling Corp., Inc., AF-0274 (eResolution
Oct. 23, 2000).
Further, in the instant case, the registration of the
domain name <shopaastra.com>
on or about March 27, 2004, predated the Trademark
License Agreement, dated October 31, 2005.
And furthermore, any purported permission regarding commercial use of
the AASTRA trademark, extended by way of the revocable Trademark License Agreement, was revoked by
Complainant’s letter of May 25, 2007,
which letter also mandated discontinuance of the use of the website <shopaastra.com>,
within thirty days of the date of the letter.
Thus, Respondent has not carried its burden of production of evidence
sufficient as to satisfy Policy ¶4(a)(ii) as to its
rights and inherent interest in the disputed domain.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of a
confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users is likely to produce
confusion, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), among
Internet users who are presumably seeking information about Complainant’s
business.
See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the
domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s
well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for
commercial gain); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d
1135, 1148 (9th
Cir. 2002) (“While an intent
to confuse consumers is not required for a finding of trademark infringement,
intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of
Confusion”).
While Complainant offered no direct proof of actual
confusion, the Panel found the following passage in Complainant’s Additional
Submission, to be persuasive evidence regarding Respondent’s intent to deceive
(and thus strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion) by supposed
affiliation; and also of intent to disrupt, by actual diversion:
“The fact is, that the
“Aastra” name is a unique trademark and not a common adjective, word, noun or
part of speech. Rather, the “Aastra”
name is a name widely associated with quality telecommunication products, which
Respondent is keenly aware of as demonstrated by Respondent’s admission that
“the purpose of the website
<shopastra.com> is to cleverly promote Aastra telecommunication
products.” See Response of Darian Adel to First Amended Complaint, page 3.
This “clever promotion” tactic, via usage of trademark
AASTRA in domain name, was in force at the registration stage, was in force in
the licensing stage, and continued to be
in force in the post-licensing stage.
In its Additional Submission, Complainant also alleges
that Respondent sells products that directly compete with those offered by
Complainant, on the website associated with the disputed domain name.
Complainant proves this allegation by its submission in its Exhibit 7, showing
three pages of Plantronics products, printed from and being sold on
Respondent’s website. The Panel finds this evidence to be persuasive in holding
that Respondent’s use amounts to a disruption of Complainant’s business
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist
Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the
respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that
were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect
users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the
complainant); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Services, FA
877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a
confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a website
containing commercial links to the websites of the complainant’s competitors
represented bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Thus, this Panel rules that Respondent’s cultivation
of commercial gain by creating consumer confusion as to source and affiliation,
and the attendant disruption of Complainant’ business by diverting customers to
competitors, is sufficient evidence of registration and use in bad faith, such
as to satisfy Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under
the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <shopaastra.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Carol M. Stoner, Esq., Panelist
Dated: October 12, 2007
Click
Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum