national arbitration forum




Affliction, Inc. v. Sang Hun Lee

Claim Number: FA0806001198691



Complainant is Affliction, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Amanda J. McLaughlin of Burkhalter Kessler Goodman & George, LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is Sang Hun Lee (“Respondent”), Korea.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with, Inc.(



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.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically June 2, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint June 3, 2008.


On June 4, 2008,, Inc.( confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with, Inc.( and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name., Inc.( has verified that Respondent is bound by the, Inc.( registration agreement and thereby has 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 17, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 7, 2008,
by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted in English and Korean 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 by e-mail.


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


On July 9, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.


Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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.      The domain name that Respondent registered, <>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AFFLICTION mark.


2.      Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <> domain name.


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


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



Complainant, Affliction, Inc., began using the AFFLICTION mark in 2005 in connection with the sale of apparel and accessories.  Complainant registered the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 78/618,478 issued  June 27, 2006) as well as the Korean Intellectual Property Office (876,121 issued Oct. 25, 2005).


Respondent registered the disputed domain name April 20, 2008.  The <> domain name currently resolves to a website that purports to sell Complainant’s products.



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."


Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 to and/or Confusingly Similar


The Panel finds Complainant established rights to the AFFLICTION mark based upon its trademark registration with the USPTO as well as the Korean trademark authority.  Therefore, the Panel recognizes Complainant’s rights in the AFFLICTION 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 <> domain name contains Complainant’s AFFLICTION mark in its entirety.  The addition of the geographic term “Korea” does not diminish the similarity; instead it gives the impression that Complainant operates a business geared toward the sale of its product in that region of the world.  The addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is also irrelevant since all domain names require a top-level domain.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AFFLICTION 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 <> incorporates in its entirety the complainant’s distinctive mark, QUIXTAR, the domain name is confusingly similar); see also MFI UK Ltd. v. Jones, D2003-0102 (WIPO May 8, 2003) (finding the <> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s MFI mark because the addition of the letters “UK” were merely a common designation for the United Kingdom); 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 Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).


Rights to or Legitimate Interests


Complainant claims that Respondent has neither rights to 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 makes a prima facie 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 <> domain name.  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., 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).


Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized to use the AFFLICTION 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 <> 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 <> domain name to sell Complainant’s merchandise.  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 Nike, Inc. v. Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services where the respondent used the complainant’s mark without authorization to attract Internet users to its website, which offered both the complainant’s products and those of the complainant’s competitors); see also Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Ostanik, D2000-1611 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the <> domain name where the respondent purports to resell original Pitney Bowes equipment on its website, as well as goods of other competitors of the complainant).


Based on the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant met the burden of showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests, and therefore has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  


The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).


Registration and Use in Bad Faith


The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <> domain name to commercially gain by opportunistically using Complainant’s protected mark to sell merchandise constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2, FA 124508 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s CELEBREX mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Vine, FA 97097 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2001) (“Respondent registered each of the disputed domain names in order to gain customers and to disrupt Complainant's business of authorizing dealers to sell its CATERPILLAR equipment.”).


Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <> domain name for commercial gain by selling Complainant’s merchandise, and benefiting from the likely confusion between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that the similarity between the disputed domain name and the AFFLICTION mark is likely to create confusion as to Complainant’s source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website that resolves from the disputed domain name which constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant); see also Utensilerie Assoc. S.p.A. v. C & M, D2003-0159 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2003) (“The contents of the website, offering Usag products, together with the domain name may create the (incorrect) impression that Respondent is either the exclusive distributor or a subsidiary of Complainant, or at the very least that Complainant has approved its use of the domain name.”).


The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).



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


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



Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist

Dated: July 23, 2008.



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum