Countrywide Financial Corporation v. My Name is not yours c/o Aureliano Buendia
Claim Number: FA0711001109052
Complainant is Countrywide Financial Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Lance
G. Johnson, of Roylance Abrams Berdo & Goodman LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <countrywide-jobs.com>, registered with Enom, 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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 14, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 19, 2007.
On November 14, 2007, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 November 28, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 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@countrywide-jobs.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 24, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUNTRYWIDE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Countrywide Financial Corporation, provides home loan, banking and insurance services under the COUNTRYWIDE mark. They use this mark in various forms of advertising, including online. The COUNTRYWIDE mark was registered by Complainant with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on January 5, 1993 (Reg. No. 1,744,794).
Respondent registered the <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name on September 19, 2007. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to maintain a website which uses Complainant’s mark and offers a job application. Upon submission of the application, the user receives a solicitation for services that compete directly with Complainant’s.
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the
COUNTRYWIDE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through
registration of the mark 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 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 <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s COUNTRYWIDE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because
Respondent’s disputed domain name incorporates the COUNTRYWIDE mark with a
generic term and the addition of a hyphen.
See Arthur Guinness Son
& Co. (
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. 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 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”). However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent is using the <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name to “pass itself
off” as Complainant in conjunction with an online job application for a loan
officer. Upon an Internet user’s
submission of the application, the Internet user receives a solicitation from
Complainant’s competitor for goods and services that directly complete with Complainant. Respondent’s use of a domain name that is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to solicit directly competing goods
and services to Internet users interested in Complainant’s mark is not a use in
connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services pusuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Am.
Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30,
2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the
complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark
and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name); see also Crow v. LOVEARTH.net,
FA 203208 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 28, 2003) (“It is neither a bona fide offerings
[sic] of goods or services, nor an example of a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii) when the holder of a domain name,
confusingly similar to a registered mark, attempts to profit by passing itself off
as Complainant . . . .”).
Additionally, the record and WHOIS information indicates no
evidence suggesting Respondent is commonly known by the <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name. Also, there is no evidence in the record that
Respondent is authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Thus, Respondent has not established rights
or legitimate interests in the <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see
also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that
without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is
commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name, which is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUNTRYWIDE mark, to solicit Internet
users with the goods and services of one of Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds that such use constitutes a
disruption of Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb.
Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered the domain name in
question to disrupt the business of the complainant, a competitor of the
respondent); 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).”).
In addition, Respondent is using the <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name, which is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUNTRYWIDE mark, to solicit Internet
users with the goods and services of one of Complainant’s competitors by
attempting to appear as Complainant. The
Panel finds that such use is evidence that Respondent is attempting to profit
by giving the impression of being affiliated with Complainant which is evidence
of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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 Anne of Green Gable Licensing Auth., Inc. v.
Internetworks, AF-0109 (eResolution June 12, 2000) (finding that the
respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the
respondent admittedly used the complainant’s well-known mark to attract users
to the respondent's website).
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 <countrywide-jobs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: January 16, 2008
National
Arbitration Forum