Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. St Kitts Registry
Claim Number: FA0708001071913
Complainant is Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by J.
Andrew Coombs, of J. Andrew Coombs, A Professional Corporation,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <disneylatina.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, 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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On September 12, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 2, 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 email@example.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
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 <disneylatina.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <disneylatina.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <disneylatina.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Disney Enterprises, Inc., is a worldwide leading producer of children’s entertainment and services. Complainant holds hundreds of DISNEY marks all over the world, including the DISNEY mark which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,162,727 issued July 28, 1981). Complainant also operates websites at several associated DISNEY domain names including at the <disneylatino.com>, <disney.com>, and <disneyland.com> domain names.
Respondent, St Kitts Registry, registered the <disneylatina.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.
Policy ¶4(a)(i) requires Complainant to establish rights in the DISNEY mark. Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO sufficiently satisfies this requirement. See 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."); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”).
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it fully
incorporates the DISNEY mark and adds the generic term “Latina” and the generic
top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The
Panel finds that these additions fail to distinguish the disputed domain name
from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (
The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has met its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) requires that
Complainant establish that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name. Complainant’s
assertion that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests sufficiently
establishes a prima facie case and
shifts the burden to Respondent to establish that rights or legitimate
interests exist. See Compagnie Generale des
Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14,
2001) (“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.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin
Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding
permitting the Panel to presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name. See American Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it
is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name.”); see also Broadcom
Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Nothing in the record, including the WHOIS information leads the Panel to conclude that Respondent, “St Kitts Registry,” is commonly known by the <disneylatina.com> domain name. Therefore, Respondent is unable to establish rights or legitimate interests 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 America Online, Inc. v. World Photo Video & Imaging Corp., FA 109031 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 13, 2002) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by <aolcamera.com> or <aolcameras.com> because the respondent was doing business as “Sunset Camera” and “World Photo Video & Imaging Corp.”).
The Panel further finds that Respondent’s unauthorized use of the website located at the disputed domain name to display hyperlinks to third-party commercial websites featuring Complaint’s products as well as those containing adult-oriented content does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Domain firstname.lastname@example.org +1.415.0, FA 128701 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 16, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of its domain name in order to divert Internet users to a website that offers search engine services and links to adult orientated websites was not considered to be in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii)); see also Geoffrey, Inc. v. Toyrus.com, FA 150406 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2003) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that it used to redirect Internet users to an Internet directory website that featured numerous pop-up advertisements for commercial goods and sexually explicit websites).
The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has met its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users seeking Complainant’s products and services to its website featuring links to third-party commercial and adult-oriented websites presumably for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, the disputed domain name is capable of causing confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Qwest Comm’ns Int’l Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 187431 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit from the misleading <qwestwirless.com> domain name by linking the domain name to adult oriented websites, gambling websites, and websites in competition with Complainant. Respondent’s attempt to commercially benefit from the misleading domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Land O' Lakes Inc. v. Offbeat Media Inc., FA 96451 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent utilized a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and used a confusingly similar pornographic depiction of the complainant’s registered trademark on its website to cause confusion as to the source or affiliation of the site).
The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has met its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <disneylatina.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: October 22, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum