Norton Finance (
Claim Number: FA0711001112193
Complainant is Norton Finance (UK) Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Adam
Taylor, of Adlex Solicitors, 76A
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <nortonloans.net>, registered with Domaindiscover.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 21, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 26, 2007.
On November 21, 2007, Domaindiscover confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <nortonloans.net> domain name is registered with Domaindiscover and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domaindiscover has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domaindiscover 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 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 postmaster@nortonloans.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 27, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 <nortonloans.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NORTON FINANCE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <nortonloans.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <nortonloans.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Norton Finance (UK) Limited, has used the NORTON FINANCE mark continually since 1988 to provide lending services to customers. Complainant operates its main websites at <nortonfinance.com> and <nortonfinance.co.uk>. Complainant registered both the NORTON FINANCE and NORTON marks with the UK Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) on November 3, 2005 (Reg. No. 2,374,663).
Respondent registered the <nortonloans.net> domain name on June 2, 2007. Respondent was previously using the disputed domain name to advertise links to competing and unrelated websites. The disputed domain name has not resolved to an active website since October 4, 2007.
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 registered the NORTON FINANCE mark with the UKIPO, and therefore established rights to the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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.”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered
mark because the <nortonloans.net>
domain name includes one term of the registered mark
and the generic term “loans” which describes Complainant’s business. The addition of the generic top-level domain
(“gTLD”) “.net” does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from
Complainant’s NORTON FINANCE mark because all domain names are required to have
a top-level domain. Therefore, the Panel
finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NORTON
FINANCE mark under 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 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 Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed 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, 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).
The Panel presumes that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent failed to answer the Complaint. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); 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). However, the Panel will examine all evidence in the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized to use the NORTON FINANCE mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name 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 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 previously used the disputed domain name to advertise links to sites unrelated to and competing with Complainant’s services. The Panel finds that such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure since October 2007 to actively use the disputed domain name further demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the <nortonloans.net> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See TMP Int’l, Inc. v. Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“[T]he Panel concludes that Respondent's [inactive use] of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where the respondent was not actively using the domain name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent was using the <nortonloans.net>
domain name to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by
creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website that resolved from the
disputed domain name. The website that
resolved from the disputed domain name advertised links to both competing and
unrelated websites, and Complainant asserts that Respondent is benefiting by
such commercial use. The Panel finds
that Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
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).
The Panel finds that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise links to competing
services also constitutes registration and use in bad faith 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).”).
Moreover, because the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website, the Panel finds Respondent’s non-active use demonstrates registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s non-active use of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).
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 <nortonloans.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 8, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum