national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

David Keirsey v. Caribbean Online International Ltd.

Claim Number: FA0711001106078

 

PARTIES

Complainant is David Keirsey (“Complainant”), PO Box 2748, Del Mar, CA 92104.  Respondent is Caribbean Online International Ltd. (“Respondent”), Kings Court, Bay Street, P.O. Box N-3944, Nassau BS.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <davidkeirsey.com>, registered with Domaindoorman, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 2, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 2, 2007.

 

On November 5, 2007, Domaindoorman, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <davidkeirsey.com> domain name is registered with Domaindoorman, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Domaindoorman, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domaindoorman, LLC 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 November 19, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 10, 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@davidkeirsey.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On December 16, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <davidkeirsey.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s DAVID KEIRSEY mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <davidkeirsey.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <davidkeirsey.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, David Keirsey, Inc. is an online provider of software for testing and scoring tests in the fields of personality type, conflict management, career selection, team building, career placement, career management, human resource management, relationship, dating, learning styles and research.  Dr. David West Keirsey is an internationally-known psychologist who has developed the four Keirsey Temperaments:  Artisan, Guardian, Idealist, and Rational.  Complainant has used the DAVID KERISEY mark and the domain name <keirsey.com> since 1996 to promote the Keirsey Temperament Sorter and the internationally-bestselling books Please Understand Me and Please Understand Me II.  Complainant has established rights in the DAVID KEIRSEY mark through extensive marketing of its online resources and books for over ten years.

 

Respondent registered the <davidkeirsey.com> domain name on December 22, 2006.  Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website that advertises links to websites which sell competing products.  Respondent has previously been ordered by UDRP panels to transfer the domain name registrations of at least two other domain names that were found to be infringing upon the complainant’s trademarks.  See O’Reilly Auto., Inc. v. Carribbean Online Int’l Ltd., FA 982192 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2007) (transferring the <orielyautoparts.com> domain name to the complainant); see also Chevron Intellectual Prop. LLC v. Caribbean Online Int’l Ltd., FA 833024 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 20, 2006) (transferring the <texacocreditcards.com> domain name to the complainant).       

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant is not required to own a trademark registration to establish rights in the DAVID KEIRSEY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist); see also British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (noting that the Policy “does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and applying the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service marks”).

 

Complainant has established common law rights in the DAVID KEIRSEY mark through continuous and extensive use of the mark in connection with its personality-type resources since 1996.  Complainant is well known in the fields of personality type, conflict management, career selection, team building, career placement, career management, human resource management, relationship, dating, learning styles and research for its development of a personality type assessment system.  Complainant has also registered the <keirsey.com> domain name.  Therefore, Complainant’s DAVID KEIRSEY mark has acquired secondary meaning sufficient to establish common law rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also BroadcastAmerica.com, Inc. v. Quo, DTV2000-0001 (WIPO Oct. 4, 2000) (finding that the complainant has common law rights in BROADCASTAMERICA.COM, given extensive use of that mark to identify the complainant as the source of broadcast services over the Internet, and evidence that there is wide recognition with the BROADCASTAMERICA.COM mark among Internet users as to the source of broadcast services). 

 

Respondent’s <davidkeirsey.com> domain name is identical under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it incorporates both terms of the DAVID KEIRSEY mark.  The addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the DAVID KEIRSEY mark because all domain names are required to have a top-level domain.  Domain names also do not have spaces, so the lack of a space between the two individual terms of the DAVID KEIRSEY mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name.  See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to the complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”).  

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <davidkeirsey.com> domain name.  Complainant must first present a prima facie case establishing that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Once Complainant has met the burden and made a prima facie case supporting the assertion that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <davidkeirsey.com> domain name, and thus made a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See 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.”); 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).

 

Because Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, the Panel presumes that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Am. 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 Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).  Nevertheless, the Panel will examine all evidence in the record to determine if Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

There is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <davidkeirsey.com> domain name.  Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent has never been authorized to use the DAVID KEIRSEY mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to 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 Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark).

 

In addition, Respondent is currently using the disputed domain name to advertise links to third-party websites that offer competing products and services.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for commercial gain by misdirecting Internet users to third-party websites offering similar services to Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.     

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent uses the <davidkeirsey.com> domain name to direct Internet users a website that advertises links to third-party websites competing with Complainant’s products and services.  Respondent likely receives click-through fees for each Internet user redirected to competing websites.  Thus, Respondent is taking advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the DAVID KEIRSEY mark, and capitalizing on the goodwill associated with the mark.  See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); 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).

 

Moreover, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise links to websites offering products and services that compete with Complainant constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See 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); 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).”).

 

Finally, Respondent has registered domain names incorporating others’ famous names and marks, and has been the respondent in several UDRP decision in which the disputed domain name was transferred from Respondent to the complainant in that case.  See O’Reilly Auto., Inc. v. Caribbean Online Int’l Ltd., FA 982192 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2007); see also Chevron Intellectual Prop. LLC v. Caribbean Online Int’l Ltd., FA 833024 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 20, 2006).  The Panel finds that this pattern of behavior is further evidence of Respondent’s registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net, D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s previous registration of domain names such as <pillsbury.net>, <schlitz.net>, <biltmore.net> and <honeywell.net> and subsequent registration of the disputed <Marlboro.com> domain name evidenced bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).         

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.        

 

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 <davidkeirsey.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated:  December 27, 2007

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum