national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

DatingDirect.com Limited v. Cheryl Barclay

Claim Number: FA0801001139908

 

PARTIES

Complainant is DatingDirect.com Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Adam Taylor, of Adlex Solicitors, United Kingdom.  Respondent is Cheryl Barclay (“Respondent”), South Carolina, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <4datingdirect.com>, registered with Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.

 

PANEL

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.

 

James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 24, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 25, 2008.

 

On January 24, 2008, Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <4datingdirect.com> domain name is registered with Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com 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 January 30, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 19, 2008 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@4datingdirect.com by e-mail.

 

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

 

On February 26, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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 <4datingdirect.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DATING DIRECT mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <4datingdirect.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <4datingdirect.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, DatingDirect.com Limited, is a respectable, international, online dating service for single people looking for serious friendships and relationships.  Complainant owns several international trademarks, including one with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office for the DATING DIRECT mark (Reg. No. 2,319,425 issued June 16, 2006).

 

Respondent registered the <4datingdirect.com> domain name on September 26, 2007.  The disputed domain name previously resolved to a website offering services in direct competition with Complainant, until Complainant communicated with Respondent and the web page was removed.

 

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 asserts rights in the DATING DIRECT mark through registration with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive."); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”).

 

Complainant contends Respondent’s <4datingdirect.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DATING DIRECT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  Respondent’s disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adds a generic numeral and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  The Panel holds when a disputed domain name contains a complainant’s mark, the addition of a numeral and the addition of a gTLD are irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark.  See Am. Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <go2AOL.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark); see also Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source, D2000-0362 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the domain name <0xygen.com>, with zero in place of letter “O,” “appears calculated to trade on Complainant’s name by exploiting likely mistake by users when entering the url address”); see also 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).  Therefore, the Panel finds the <4datingdirect.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <4datingdirect.com> domain name.  Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  The Panel finds that in this case Complainant has established a prima facie case.  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).

 

Due to the failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See 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); see also 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.”).  However, the Panel chooses to examine the evidence against the applicable Policy ¶ 4(c) elements before making a final determination about Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <4datingdirect.com> domain name, nor licensed to register domain names using the DATING DIRECT mark.  Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Cheryl Barclay,” which lacks any defining characteristics relating it to the disputed domain name.  Therefore, the Panel finds that without any evidence of being commonly known by the <4datingdirect.com> domain name, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  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 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).

 

Respondent’s <4datingdirect.com> domain name was being used to intentionally divert Internet users to the associated website, where Respondent offered adult relationship services in direct competition with Complainant.  The Panel finds that by using a confusingly similar domain name to intentionally divert Internet users to a website in direct competition with Complainant is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site); see also Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) (finding that the respondent used a domain name for commercial benefit by diverting Internet users to a website that sold goods and services similar to those offered by the complainant and thus, was not using the name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

Respondent is currently failing to make an active use of the website that resolves from the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that this 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 Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); 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 failed to actively use the domain name).  

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent’s use of the <4datingdirect.com> domain name to offer services which directly compete with Complainant is evidence of bad faith.  The Panel finds that a registered domain name used primarily to disrupt the business prospects of a competitor is an illustration of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also 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).

 

Respondent’s use of the <4datingdirect.com> domain name in order to intentionally attract Internet users to its website by creating a strong possiblity of confusion with Complainant’s DATING DIRECT mark and offering services in direct competition to Complainant is further evidence of bad faith.  Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds such use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use.  See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Shafir, FA 196119 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“As Respondent is using the domain name at issue in direct competition with Complainant, and giving the impression of being affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant, this circumstance qualifies as bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).

 

Respondent’s current failure to actively use the disputed domain name is further evidence of Respondent’s registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (“[I]t is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.”); see also 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.

 

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 <4datingdirect.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist

Dated: March 6, 2008

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum