Bainbridge Capital, Inc. v. ID Domain Privacy Network (IDdp.Net) c/o Domain Registrant
Claim Number: FA0709001082153
Complainant is Bainbridge Capital, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Gary
J. Nelson of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP, 350
West Colorado Boulevard, Suite 500, PO Box 7068, Pasadena, CA, 91109-7068. Respondent is ID Domain Privacy Network (IDdp.Net) c/o Domain
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bainbridgemgmt.com>, registered with Key-Systems Gmbh.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically September 25, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint September 26, 2007.
On September 27, 2007, Key-Systems Gmbh confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bainbridgemgmt.com> domain name is registered with Key-Systems Gmbh and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems Gmbh verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems Gmbh registration agreement and thereby has 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 2, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 22, 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.
On October 25, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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. The domain name that Respondent registered, <bainbridgemgmt.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BAINBRIDGE mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <bainbridgemgmt.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <bainbridgemgmt.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Bainbridge Capital, Inc., continuously has used the BAINBRIDGE mark since 1996 in connection with business management and market research services. Complainant holds a registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the BAINBRIDGE mark (Reg. No. 2,156,896 issued May, 1998).
The disputed domain name that Respondent registered, <bainbridgemgmt.com>, was registered March 14, 2007, and currently resolves to a website advertising and offering services in direct competition with 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."
Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 established by extrinsic evidence in this proceeding that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the BAINBRIDGE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO. 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 U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. MS Tech. Inc., FA 198898 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2003) (“[O]nce the USPTO has made a determination that a mark is registrable, by so issuing a registration, as indeed was the case here, an ICANN panel is not empowered to nor should it disturb that determination.”). Complainant alleges that Respondent has no such rights or interest in the mark contained within the domain name.
Respondent registered and used the <bainbridgemgmt.com> domain name, which contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety and includes the generic top level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com” and the abbreviated term “mgmt” that stands for the generic term “management.” These terms describe the services offered under Complainant’s mark. Such additions do not differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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 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); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business). The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See VeriSign Inc. v. VeneSign
Respondent did not submit a response to the Complaint. The Panel is entitled to presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bainbridgemgmt.com> domain name. However, the Panel considers all the available evidence in consideration of the factors listed under Policy ¶ 4(c). See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“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).
Nowhere in Respondent’s WHOIS information or elsewhere in the record does it indicate that Respondent is or ever has been commonly known by the <bainbridgemgmt.com> domain name. Absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See 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 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).
The disputed domain name, <bainbridgemgmt.com>, contains Complainant’s BAINBRIDGE mark in its entirety and resolves to a website advertising and offering services that seek to compete with those offered under Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate or noncommercial fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See eBay Inc. v. Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s entire mark in domain names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate use); see also Or. State Bar v. A Special Day, Inc., FA 99657 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2001) (“Respondent's advertising of legal services and sale of law-related books under Complainant's name is not a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using a mark confusingly similar to the Complainant's to sell competing goods.”); see also Ultimate Elecs., Inc. v. Nichols, FA 195683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2003) (finding that the respondent's “use of the domain name (and Complainant’s mark) to sell products in competition with Complainant demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name”).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <bainbridgemgmt.com> domain name resolves to a website advertising and offering services that are in direct competition with those offered under Complainant’s mark. Absent affirmative evidence to the contrary, the Panel is entitled to assume that Respondent either attempts to compete or operates on behalf of another who would attempt to compete with Complainant. The Panel finds that such use is calculated to disrupt Complainant’s business and it permits findings that Respondent acted in bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the complainant's marks suggests that the respondent, the complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the complainant's business); see also 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 . . ..”).
Further, Respondent’s disputed <bainbridgemgmt.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and it advertises competing services. The Panel assumes that this is to the financial benefit of Respondent. The Panel finds this to be further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. v. Clelland, FA 198018 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“Respondent used <land-cruiser.com> to advertise its business, which sold goods in competition with Complainant. This establishes bad faith as defined in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to attract users to a website sponsored by the respondent).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied 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 <bainbridgemgmt.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: November 10, 2007.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum