National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. v. COMn.COM
Claim Number: FA0206000114602
PARTIES
Complainant
is National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc., Washington, DC, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Carla B. Oakley, of Brobeck, Phleger & Harison LLP. Respondent is COMn.COM,
Suseonggu, Taegu, KOREA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <nasd.org>,
registered with NETPIA.com.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on June 14, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on June 12, 2002.
On
June 19, 2002, NETPIA.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name
<nasd.org> is registered with NETPIA.com
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NETPIA.com has verified that Respondent is
bound by the NETPIA.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
June 24, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 15,
2002, 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@nasd.org by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
July 29, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as
Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”)
finds that the 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 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
allegations in this proceeding:
1. Respondent’s <nasd.org> domain
name is identical to Complainant’s NASD registered mark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <nasd.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <nasd.org>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent wrote an email note but did
not submit a Response that complied with the rules in this proceeding. Further, Respondent’s email note did not
raise substantive issues and contained an admission that the domain name should
be transferred. Therefore, the case is
being treated as a default pursuant to the Rules.
FINDINGS
Complainant
holds numerous registrations with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) for its NASD mark, including: Reg. No. 1,555,272 registered on
September 5, 1989; Reg. No. 1,984,279 registered on July 2, 1996; and, Reg. No.
2,230,734 registered on March 9, 1999 for a stylized version of the NASD mark.
Complainant
regulates the securities industry and oversees virtually all U.S. stockbrokers
and brokerage firms. Complainant was established under the authority granted by
the 1938 Maloney Act Amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Complainant is the self-regualtory organization of the securities industry
responsible for the regulation of The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
Complainant
is recognized internationally as the largest and foremost securities industry
self-regulatory organization in the world.
For
more than sixty years, Complainant has continuously used the NASD family of
marks in relation to its regulation of the securities industry. Complainant has
spent millions of dollars to promote its various products and services offered
under its NASD mark.
Because of the foregoing evidence,
Complainant’s NASD mark has become famous and distinct.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on November 13, 2002. Inititally, Respondent did not operate any business
or offer any goods or servcies under the NASD mark. However, after
Complainant’s counsel sent a letter to Respondent informing it of Complainant’s
rights in the NASD mark, Respondent directed Internet users to an
investment-oriented website located at <investorsuniverse.com>. Following
Complainant’s May 13, 2002, letter, Respondent promptly redirected Internet
traffic to the <nasd.org> domain name and justified its use of
Complainant’s NASD mark based on its “Network Association of Sale Dealers”
website.
On July 15, 2002, Respondent sent an
electronic message to the Forum, which states:
Anyway,,, [sic]
I know about NASD and the Trademark and History well now. I would like to
present this domain nasd.org to Complainant now. Please transfer this domain to
Complainant.
Respondent
has been found to be in default because Respondent raised no substantive
arguments in this Submission in accordance with UDRP Rule 5(b)(i)[1]
and because Respondent concedes in it that the domain name should be
transferred to Complainant. The Panel finds that this submission negates the
need to seek additional documentation or translations under Rule 11[2].
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 the 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.
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
NASD mark through registration with the USPTO and continuous use of the mark in
regards to securities regulation since the 1938 Maloney Act Amendments.
The domain name registered by Respondent,
<nasd.org>, is identical to Complainant’s registered NASD mark.
Respondent’s domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark, mirroring it
in spelling and form. The addition of the generic top-level domain name “.org”
is inconsequential when conducting an “identical” inquiry under Policy ¶
4(a)(i); thus, Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark. See
Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti,
D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to
Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the
name POMELLATO is not relevant); 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).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent did not submit a Response that
was in compliance with the Rules in this proceeding. Respondent’s email note
raised no substantive issues. And,
Respondent’s email note contained an admission that the domain name in issue
should be transferred to the Complainant.
Therefore, it is presumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the <nasd.org> domain name. See Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M
Virtual Reality Inc., AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where no such right or interest was immediately
apparent to the Panel and Respondent did not come forward to suggest any right
or interest it may have possessed).
Furthermore, because Respondent failed to
submit a Response, the Panel is permitted to make all reasonable inferences in
favor of Complainant. See 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”).
The facts permit the inference that
Respondent registered the infringing domain name in order to divert
Complainant’s Internet users and potential customers to Respondent’s websites,
which contain numerous advertisements from which Respondent undoubtedly
benefits monetarily. Respondent profits
from the perceived affiliation its websites have with Complainant’s famous NASD
mark. Respondent’s opportunistic registration of the subject domain name is not
in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶
4(a)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Vapor
Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27,
2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse
and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name); see
also Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day,
FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate use when
Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by using Complainant’s
trademarks); see also Caterpillar
Inc. v. Quin, D2000-0314 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that Respondent does
not have a legitimate interest in using the domain names <caterpillarparts.com>
and <caterpillarspares.com> to suggest a connection or relationship,
which does not exist, with Complainant's mark CATERPILLAR).
Complainant’s investigation reveals that
Respondent and its authorized representative, Hanjin Ko, have registered or are
affiliated with at least 189 domain names. Among these 189 domain names are
numerous second level domains that hold some significant meaning and may be
monetarily profitable, such as: <tvchatting.com>, <4drug.com>,
<searchxpress.com>, <dishonor.com>, <desire.com>,
<stress.net>, <oppressor.com> and <objection.net>, among
others. Complainant’s record further establishes that 160 of Respondent’s
domain names are being used in a fashion that is similar to use made of the
contested <nasd.org> domain name, namely, the domain names link to
a commercial retailer at <forwards.com>. Respondent’s prolific
registration of numerous unrelated domain names constitutes circumstantial
evidence that Respondent intends to sell or capitalize on an association with
NASD; thus, Respondent’s use of Complainant’s domain name does not demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Perf. Networks,
Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests where the Respondent registered the domain name with the
intention of selling the domain name); see also Skipton Bldg. Soc’y v. Colman, D2000-1217 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000)
(finding no rights in a domain name where Respondent offered the infringing
domain name for sale and the evidence suggests that anyone approaching this
domain name through the world wide web would be "misleadingly"
diverted to other sites).
The
subject domain name does not consist of Respondent’s legal or common name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant states that it has not licensed or
otherwise permitted Respondent to use the NASD mark, or any domain name
incorporating the NASD mark. See Gallup
Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001)
(finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent
is not known by the mark); see also Compagnie
de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly
known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from
Complainant to use the trademarked name).
Accordingly,
the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The circumstances surrounding
Respondent’s registration of the infringing domain name suggest that Respondent
was aware of Complainant’s exclusive rights in its NASD mark. According to the
WHOIS records, Registrant’s authorized representative, Hanjin Ko, serves as the
administrative, technical and billing contact for three domain names,
<hdu-edu-nasd-nyse.com>, <hdu-nasd.com> and <hdu-nasd.org>.
These three domain names resolve to the same website, a location that
apparently offers training for NASD/NYSE licensing exams. This evidence is
beyond mere coincidence, and signifies Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s
rights in the NASD mark. Respondent’s registration of the NASD mark in a domain
name, despite knowledge of Complainant’s preexisting rights in the mark,
represents bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Entrepreneur Media,
Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that
"[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to
another, one can infer an intent to confuse"); see also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA
94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith
includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time
of registration); see also Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that
Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark
given the world-wide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the
domain name in bad faith).
Complainant has provided uncontested
evidence that Respondent has exhibited a pattern of registering numerous
potentially profitable domain names. Aforementioned circumstances permit the
inference that Respondent registered the subject domain name for the purpose of
selling, renting or otherwise transferring the registration; thus, Respondent’s
actions evidence bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See
Pocatello Idaho Auditorium Dist. v. CES Mktg. Group, Inc., FA 103186 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002) ("[w]hat makes an offer to sell a domain [name]
bad faith is some accompanying evidence that the domain name was registered
because of its value that is in some way dependent on the trademark of another,
and then an offer to sell it to the trademark owner or a competitor of the
trademark owner"); see also Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web
Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no
certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith”).
Furthermore,
Respondent has expressed a willingness to transfer the domain name to
Complainant. Respondent’s actions, when considered in conjunction with its
infringing use of <nasd.org>, represent conflicting
representations and bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Marcor
Int’l v. Langevin, FA
96317 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 12, 2001) (Respondent’s registration and use of the
domain name at issue coupled with its expressed willingness to transfer the
name amply satisfies the bad faith requirements set forth in ICANN Policy); see
also Land O’ Lakes Inc. v. Offbeat
Media Inc., FA 96451 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2001) (finding that
Respondent’s willingness to transfer upon notification of the Complaint is
evidence of its bad faith registration and use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nasd.org> domain name
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks
Johnson, Panelist
Dated: August 12, 2002.
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
[1] UDRP Rule 5(b)(i), The Response, states, (b) The response shall be submitted in hard copy and in electronic form and shall: (i) Respond specifically to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name.
[2] UDRP Rule 11(a), Language of the Proceedings, states: (a) Unless otherwise agree by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. (b) The Panel may order that any documents submitted in languages other than the language of the administrative proceeding be accompanies by a translation in whole or in part into the language of the administrative proceeding.