SkinMedica, Inc. v. Keyword Marketing, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0711001112121
Complainant is SkinMedica, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Dave
Deonarine, of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
12235 El Camino Real,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tnsrecoverycomplex.com>, registered with Belgiumdomains, LLC.
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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On November 29, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 19, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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 <tnsrecoverycomplex.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s TNS RECOVERY COMPLEX mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <tnsrecoverycomplex.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <tnsrecoverycomplex.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, SkinMedica, Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical
company based in
Respondent registered the <tnsrecoverycomplex.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.
Complainant has established rights in the TNS RECOVERY
COMPLEX 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
The Panel finds that Respondent’s <tnsrecoverycomplex.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s TNS RECOVERY COMPLEX mark despite the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.” See Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra, Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name <robohelp.com> is identical to the complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference"); see also Daedong-USA, Inc. v. O’Bryan Implement Sales, FA 210302 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003) (“Respondent's domain name, <kioti.com>, is identical to Complainant's KIOTI mark because adding a top-level domain name is irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <tnsrecoverycomplex.com> domain name. Once Complainant has offered a prima facie case supporting its allegations, as it has in this case, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it has rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See 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); see 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”).
The failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint allows the Panel to conclude that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <tnsrecoverycomplex.com> domain name. See Eroski, So. Coop. v. Getdomains Ishowflat Ltd., D2003-0209 (WIPO July 28, 2003) (“It can be inferred that by defaulting Respondent showed nothing else but an absolute lack of interest on the domain name.”); see also Branco do Brasil S.A. v. Sync Tech., D2000-0727 (WIPO Sept. 1, 2000) (“By its default, Respondent has not contested the allegation . . . that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel thus assumes that there was no other reason for the Respondent having registered <bancodobrasil.com> but the presumably known existence of the Complainant’s mark BANCO DO BRASIL”). However, the Panel will examine all evidence in the record to determine if Respondent does have rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent primarily uses the <tnsrecoverycomplex.com> domain name to deceptively divert Internet users to Respondent’s website, which features links to websites containing products in direct competition with Complainant. Advertisers listed on the Respondent’s website presumably pay Respondent referral fees. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark in this manner does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to 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 Nike, Inc. v. Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services where the respondent used the complainant’s mark without authorization to attract Internet users to its website, which offered both the complainant’s products and those of the complainant’s competitors); see also Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001) (finding that use of the complainant’s mark to sell the complainant’s perfume, as well as other brands of perfume, is not bona fide use).
Respondent offers no evidence to conclude that Respondent is
commonly known by the <tnsrecoverycomplex.com>
domain name. Moreover, the WHOIS domain name registration
information offers the same conclusion.
Finally, there are no facts in the record to suggest that Respondent
ever acquired a license to use Complainant’s mark. Thus, Respondent has not established rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp.,
D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where
the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a
license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see
also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of
the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede
the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the
domain name in question); see also Wells Fargo
& Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc.,
FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s website solely
lists links to websites that offer products in direct competition with
Complainant. The Panel thus concludes
that Respondent registered the <tnsrecoverycomplex.com>
domain name in bad faith in order to
disrupt the business of Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO
Respondent’s use of the <tnsrecoverycomplex.com> domain name intentionally attracts Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s source or affiliation of the website and disputed domain name. Respondent’s commercial gain presumably originates from referral fees offered by advertisers listed on Respondent’s website. Internet users seeking Complainant’s products would likely find Respondent’s website which links to websites offering competiting goods, and consequentially be confused as to the affiliation or source of the website. Thus, Respondent’s registration of the <tnsrecoverycomplex.com> domain name constitutes bad faith pursuant to a Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) analysis. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also 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).
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 <tnsrecoverycomplex.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Dated: January 2, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum