National Arbitration Forum




Baylor University v. Mir Internet Marketing, Inc.

Claim Number: FA0803001163868




Complainant is Baylor University (“Complainant”), represented by Wendy C. Larson, Texas, USA.  Respondent is Mir Internet Marketing, Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Mark Powers, of Law Office of Mark Powers, PC, Michigan, USA.



The domain names at issue are <> and <>, registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.



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.


David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.




Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 17, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 18, 2008.


On March 18, 2008, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> and <> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, Inc. 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 March 19, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 8, 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 and by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 7, 2008.

Additional Submissions were received on April 15, 2008 and April 22, 2008, and are in compliance with Supplemental Rule 7.


On April 14, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David P. Miranda, Esq., as Panelist.




Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.




A. Complainant

Complainant Baylor University (“Complainant”) brings this proceeding to transfer the domain names <> and <>, from Respondents Mir Internet Marketing, Inc. (“Respondent”).  Complainant contends that it was originally chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas, and is the oldest institution of higher learning in Texas and is the largest Baptist university in the world.  Baylor is the owner of the mark BAYLOR and other marks that include the term BAYLOR (referred to herein collectively as the “BAYLOR marks”) in connection with a wide range of goods and services, including the following:


·        BAYLOR, Reg. Nos. 1,465,910, 1,468,436, 1,858,559, and 1,936,714

·        BAYLOR UNIVERSITY, Reg. Nos. 1,923,603 and 1,935,130

·        BAYLOR PSORIASIS CENTER, Reg. No. 1,472,734

·        BAYLOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, Reg. No. 1,515,737

·        BAYLOR SURGICARE, Reg. No. 1,640,840


·        BAYLOR HEART SCAN, Reg. No. 3,098,570

·        BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, Reg. No. 3,119,420.


Complainant’s BAYLOR marks are used in connection with medical-related services and education, primarily through Baylor’s licensees Baylor Health Care System (“BHCS”) and Baylor College of Medicine (“BCM”).


Baylor’s licensee BCM has been operating a medical school under the mark BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE since at least 1969.  It consistently ranks among the top medical schools in the U.S.  For example, the 2007 U.S. News & World Report ranks BCM the 10th best medical school for research and 11th for primary care.


The Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at BCM offers an array of residency opportunities for new doctors, research and educational programs for its medical students, and mental health care for the community through its clinical services.


BHCS offers psychiatric services to meet behavioral health care needs such as bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia.  The domain names at issue in this complaint are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BAYLOR marks.  Each contains the identical mark BAYLOR — a famous mark strongly associated with Baylor University — and adds on the terms “psychiatry” and “psychiatrist.”  Complainant contends Respondent has not used, nor made any demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.  As of September, 2007, Respondent directed the domain names to resolve to a website entitled <> found at <>.  This website is an online business directory providing information and contact details about the competitors of Baylor and its licensees.


Complainant further contends Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced by the fact that it owns no trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain names; the domain names do not consist of the legal name of or a name commonly used to identify Respondent.  Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website <>.


The Complainant requests that the Panel issue a decision that the domain name registrations be transferred.


B. Respondent

Respondent does not contest Complainant’s trademarks, or the famousness of the marks.  Respondent contends that it has a legitimate interest in the domain names, which were registered in reference to Baylor County Texas, not Baylor University.  Since 1996 Respondent has owned and developed a business called Find Counseling located at <>.  Respondent’s business provides its members with a directory listing and provides the public with a proprietary search engine so that potential mental health clients can locate enlisted members by geographic location or practice area.  Respondent contends they picked the two disputed domain names at issue in the event that a current or future Find Counseling member “may want one of the disputed domain names.”  Respondent contends that its registration and use of the domain names is not in bad faith because they had not considered Baylor University, or its marks, when the registration occurred, and is not engaged in offering the domains for sale.  Respondent contends that Baylor is a well known geographical name, and that it has purchased and registered more than 4,000 geographic domain names over the past three years.


C. Additional Submissions

Complainant contends that Respondent was aware of Baylor University based upon representations on Respondent’s website and submits proof of Respondent’s registration of domain names containing the famous trademarks of others as further proof of bad faith.  Respondent contends that Respondent registered the domains with geographical identifiers and professional nomenclature culled from domain expirations, Respondent’s current usage follows its business plan of offering those geographic identifiers to state-licensed professionals who may want geography-related domains, and that plan took no account of Baylor’s existence or marks.


The Panel finds that Complainant is the owner of multiple federally registered marks for BAYLOR and marks that include the term BAYLOR, in connection with a wide range of goods and services, and that the domains at issue are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.  Respondent has not demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and the disputed domain names have been registered, and are being used in bad faith.  The Panel directs that the domain names be transferred to Complainant.



Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”


Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)   the 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 ownership of registrations for various service marks and trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for various marks related to its University.  Applicable to the instant dispute is the registration for the BAYLOR service and trademarks (Reg. No. 1,645,910 issued November 17, 1987).  The Panel finds that Complainant’s registrations sufficiently confer rights for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also VICORP Rests., Inc. v. Triantafillos, FA 485933 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the BAKERS SQUARE mark by registering it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).


The <> and <> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BAYLOR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  Complainant contends that the disputed domain names contain Complainant’s mark in its entirety, along with the addition of either the term “psychiatrist” or “psychiatry,” which Complainant contends has a direct relationship to Complainant’s medical school.  The addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant as all domain names are required to have a top-level domain.  See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the addition of the descriptive term “wine” to the complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark in the <> domain name was insufficient to distinguish the mark from the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Franklin Mint Fed. Credit Union v. GNO, Inc., FA 860527 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2007) (“When assessing the similarities between the domain name and the trademark, the domain name suffix “.com” should be disregarded.”).


Respondent does not address the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).


Rights or Legitimate Interests


Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  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 Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v., 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).


There is no evidence in the record that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the <> and <> domain names, or authorized by Complainant to use the BAYLOR mark.  Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there is no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also, Inc. v. Sandulli, FA 960178 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <> domain name where it was not known by the name at the time of registration and the complainant had not given the respondent a license).  Complainant contends that Respondent has previously used the disputed domain names to advertise services in direct competition with those offered by Complainant’s medical school.  Respondent has not established use of the <> and <> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 29, 2005) (holding that the respondent’s use of disputed domain names to market competing limousine services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), as the respondent was appropriating the complainant’s CAREY mark in order to profit from the mark); see also Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites).


Registration and Use in Bad Faith


Complainant argues that Respondent has offered the <> and <> domain names for sale through the websites that resolve from the disputed domain names.  Respondent disputes that it has offered for “sale,” but admits its intention is to make the domains “available” to paying members of its service who might want them in the future.  See 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”).  Respondent also admits that it has registered multiple domain names containing the famous trademarks of others.


The hyperlinks that are and that have previously been displayed on the websites that resolve from the disputed domain names are alleged to be in competition with Complainant and its services, and a disruption of Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. MCM Tours, Inc., FA 444510 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2005) (“The Respondent is a travel agency and thus operates in the same business as the Complainant. The parties can therefore be considered as competitors. The Panel thus finds that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, which constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iii).”); see also Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website).


The <> and <> domain names and resulting websites are capable of causing confusion as to Complainant’s source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement with the disputed domain names and corresponding websites. ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); 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).




Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> and <> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.



David P. Miranda, Esq., Panelist
Dated: April 30, 2008



National Arbitration Forum