Jagex Limited v. Domain Park Limited
Claim Number: FA0805001183177
Complainant is Jagex Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Adam
Taylor, of Adlex Solicitors,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <runescapehd.com>, registered with Rebel.com.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On May
5, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May
26, 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@runescapehd.com by
e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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 <runescapehd.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RUNESCAPE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <runescapehd.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <runescapehd.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Jagex Limited, is in the business of designing, developing, and operating online computer games, the most well known product is known as “Runescape.” Complainant registered the RUNESCAPE mark in association with this business with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,829,952 issued Nov. 26, 2002), as well as other countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 28, 2007. The <runescapehd.com> domain name currently resolves to a website hosting third-party links, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant’s business.
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.
The Panel finds Complainant has established rights to the
RUNESCAPE mark based upon its trademark registration with the USPTO. Therefore, the Panel recognizes Complainant’s
rights in the RUNESCAPE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Microsoft Corp. v.
Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark
through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Trip Network Inc.
v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007)
(finding that the complainant’s federal trademark registrations for the
CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights
in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
Respondent’s <runescapehd.com> domain name
contains Complainant’s RUNESCAPE mark in its entirety. The addition of “hd” does not diminish the
similarity because the phrase is a generic abbreviation. The addition of the generic top-level domain
(“gTLD”) “.com” is irrelevant since all domain names require a top-level
domain. Therefore, the Panel finds that
Respondent’s <runescapehd.com> domain name is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s RUNESCAPE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Quixtar Inv., Inc. v. Smithberger,
D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that because the domain name
<quixtar-sign-up.com> incorporates in its entirety the complainant’s
distinctive mark, QUIXTAR, the domain name is confusingly similar); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Quin, D2000-0314 (WIPO June 12, 2000)
(finding that the disputed domain names <caterpillarparts.com> and
<caterpillarspares.com> were confusingly similar to the registered
trademarks CATERPILLAR and CATERPILLER DESIGN because “the idea suggested by
the disputed domain names and the registered trademarks is that the goods or
services offered in association with [the] domain name are manufactured by or
sold by the Complainant or one of the Complainants [sic] approved distributors.
The disputed trademarks contain one distinct component, the word Caterpillar”);
see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO
Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD)
name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal
significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . .
.").
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Complainant claims that Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant has the initial burden of showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has made a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <runescapehd.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has met the initial burden of showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests, and therefore has made a prima facie case under 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).
Because Respondent failed to answer the Complaint, the Panel presumes that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also 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). Nevertheless, the Panel will examine all evidence in the record to determine if Respondent does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized to use the RUNESCAPE mark, and that Respondent is not and has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, the WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <runescapehd.com> domain name pursuant to 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).
Respondent is using the <runescapehd.com> domain name to advertise links to third-party competitors. The Panel finds that such use is not 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 DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”); 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).
Respondent also uses the disputed domain name to display a banner on the top of the web page offering to sell the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain name further indicates it lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. Domains, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name is further evidenced by Respondent’s attempt to sell its domain name registration to Complainant, the rightful holder of the RED CROSS mark.); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <runescapehd.com> domain name to commercially gain by advertising links to competing services constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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).”); 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 is using the <runescapehd.com>
domain name for commercial gain by advertising links to competing services, and
benefiting from the likely confusion between Complainant’s RUNESCAPE mark and
the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore
finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista
Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name
resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered
services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of
Internet user mistakes); see also Gardens Alive, Inc.
v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003)
(“Respondent registered and used the <my-seasons.com> domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) because Respondent is using a
domain name that is confusingly similar to the MYSEASONS mark for commercial
benefit by diverting Internet users to the <thumbgreen.com> website,
which sells competing goods and services.”).
Furthermore, Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain
name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, is further evidence of
its lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶
4(b)(i). 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”); see
also Mothers Against Drunk
Driving v. Hyun-Jun Shin, FA 154098 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (holding
that under the circumstances, the respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose
of its rights in the disputed domain
name suggested that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain
name).
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 <runescapehd.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: June 11, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum