national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

WorldPay Limited v. Tim Farris

Claim Number: FA0802001142584

 

PARTIES

Complainant is WorldPay Limited (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP, North Carolina, USA.  Respondent is Tim Farris (“Respondent”), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <worldpay-shipping.com>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.

 

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.

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 4, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 5, 2008.

 

On February 5, 2008, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <worldpay-shipping.com> domain name is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 February 7, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 27, 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@worldpay-shipping.com by e-mail.

 

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

 

On March 5, 2008, 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.

 

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 <worldpay-shipping.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WORLDPAY mark.

 

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

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <worldpay-shipping.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, WorldPay Limited, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Royal Bank of Scotland that was founded in 1993 as a company to develop and market electronic payment processing systems.  Complainant has over 20,000 customers worldwide, and provides products and services relating to payments occurring online, by fax, phone and mail.  Complainant holds several trademark registrations for the WORLDPAY mark, including with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) (Reg. No. 2,230,627 issued November 17, 2000), the European Union’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 1,945,310 issued November 3, 2000), and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,245,537 issued May 18, 1999).  Additionally, Complainant owns several domain names incorporating its WORLDPAY mark, including <worldpay.net>, <worldpay.org>, <worldpay.info> and <worldpay.com>.    

 

Respondent registered the <worldpay-shipping.com> domain name on November 13, 2007.  The disputed domain name resolves to a website that attempts to present Respondent’s website as that of Complainant’s. 

 

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 its WORLDPAY mark by virtue of its trademark registrations with several governmental authorities.  The Panel finds that Complainant’s trademark registrations adequately satisfies its burden for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)… .”); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Roswell Int’l Ltd, FA 440119 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 21, 2005) (finding the complainant had established rights in the OXICLEAN mark by virtue of trademark registrations with entities including the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”)).  

 

The Panel finds that the <worldpay-shipping.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WORLDPAY mark as the disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety with the addition of a hyphen and the generic term “shipping,” as well as a required top-level domain, in this instance, “.com.”  None of these minor additions creates a distinct domain name which is capable of overcoming a confusingly similar analysis as set forth in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003) (“The addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis.”); see also Disney Enter. v. Kudrna, FA 686103 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the alterations to the complainant’s DISNEY mark in the respondent’s <finestdisneyhomes.com> domain name are insufficient to differentiate the domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).     

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must present a prima facie case that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests with regards to the <worldpay-shipping.com> domain name.  The Panel finds that Complainant’s Complaint satisfies this burden, and accordingly the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Despite Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel will examine all the evidence with regards to the elements of Policy ¶ 4(c) before determining whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because Respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed.  In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”).

 

Respondent’s WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Tim Farris,” and there is no other evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <worldpay-shipping.com> domain name.  Additionally, as Complainant has stated that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way, the Panel finds the record void of any indication that Respondent is or has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’  Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").

 

The evidence indicates that Respondent is using the website that resolves from the <worldpay-shipping.com> domain name to attempt to pass its website off as that of Complainant’s.  The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain name 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 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 . . . .”).  

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent is using the <worldpay-shipping.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant.  Such use indicates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith); see also DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Bargman, D2000-0222 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s use of the title “Dodgeviper.com Official Home Page” gave consumers the impression that the complainant endorsed and sponsored the respondent’s website).

 

Additionally, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <worldpay-shipping.com> domain name to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant is presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain, and is thus evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed.  Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).

 

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 <worldpay-shipping.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  March 13, 2008

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum