Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Greg Kiesinger
Claim Number: FA0806001203947
Complainant is Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by J.
Andrew Coombs of J. Andrew Coombs, A Professional Corporation,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <disneyworldcelebration.com>, <disneyworldcelebrations.com>, <disneyairfare.com>, <disneyairlinetickets.com>, <disneyairtravel.com>, <disneygolfing.com>, <disneysfilms.com>, <disneysgolf.com>, <disneysgolfpackages.com>, <disneysreservations.com>, <disneysresorts.com>, <disneysrestaurants.com>, <disneysstores.com>, <disneyworldafricansafari.com>, <disneyworldairfare.com>, <disneyworldairlines.com>, <disneyworldairlinetickets.com>, <disneyworldanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldcharacters.com>, <disneyworldconferences.com>, <disneyworldepcot.com>, <disneyworldepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldgolfpackages.com>, <disneyworldhumanresources.com>, <disneyworldpleasureisland.com>, <disneyworldsafari.com>, <disneyworldsanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldsepcot.com>, <disneyworldsepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldsgolf.com>, <disneyworldshops.com>, <disneyworldslodging.com>, <disneyworldsmagickingdom.com>, <disneyworldsmgm.com>, <disneyworldsrestaurants.com>, <disneyworldsshopping.com>, <disneyworldsstores.com>, <disneyworldstickets.com>, <disneyworldstores.com>, <disneyworldsvacation.com>, <disneyworldsvacations.com>, <waltdisneycalifornia.com>, <waltdisneyproperties.com>, <waltdisneyscharacters.com>, <waltdisneyshotels.com>, <waltdisneysmickeymouse.com>, <waltdisneysresorts.com> and <waltdisneysvacations.com>, registered with Register.com, 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 12, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint June 12, 2008.
On June 16, 2008, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <disneyworldcelebration.com>, <disneyworldcelebrations.com>, <disneyairfare.com>, <disneyairlinetickets.com>, <disneyairtravel.com>, <disneygolfing.com>, <disneysfilms.com>, <disneysgolf.com>, <disneysgolfpackages.com>, <disneysreservations.com>, <disneysresorts.com>, <disneysrestaurants.com>, <disneysstores.com>, <disneyworldafricansafari.com>, <disneyworldairfare.com>, <disneyworldairlines.com>, <disneyworldairlinetickets.com>, <disneyworldanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldcharacters.com>, <disneyworldconferences.com>, <disneyworldepcot.com>, <disneyworldepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldgolfpackages.com>, <disneyworldhumanresources.com>, <disneyworldpleasureisland.com>, <disneyworldsafari.com>, <disneyworldsanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldsepcot.com>, <disneyworldsepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldsgolf.com>, <disneyworldshops.com>, <disneyworldslodging.com>, <disneyworldsmagickingdom.com>, <disneyworldsmgm.com>, <disneyworldsrestaurants.com>, <disneyworldsshopping.com>, <disneyworldsstores.com>, <disneyworldstickets.com>, <disneyworldstores.com>, <disneyworldsvacation.com>, <disneyworldsvacations.com>, <waltdisneycalifornia.com>, <waltdisneyproperties.com>, <waltdisneyscharacters.com>, <waltdisneyshotels.com>, <waltdisneysmickeymouse.com>, <waltdisneysresorts.com> and <waltdisneysvacations.com> domain names are registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Register.com, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, 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 19, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 9, 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@disneyworldcelebration.com, postmaster@disneyworldcelebrations.com, postmaster@disneyairfare.com, postmaster@disneyairlinetickets.com, postmaster@disneyairtravel.com, postmaster@disneygolfing.com, postmaster@disneysfilms.com, postmaster@disneysgolf.com, postmaster@disneysgolfpackages.com, postmaster@disneysreservations.com, postmaster@disneysresorts.com, postmaster@disneysrestaurants.com, postmaster@disneysstores.com, postmaster@disneyworldafricansafari.com, postmaster@disneyworldairfare.com, postmaster@disneyworldairlines.com, postmaster@disneyworldairlinetickets.com, postmaster@disneyworldanimalkingdom.com, postmaster@disneyworldcharacters.com, postmaster@disneyworldconferences.com, postmaster@disneyworldepcot.com, postmaster@disneyworldepcotcenter.com, postmaster@disneyworldgolfpackages.com, postmaster@disneyworldhumanresources.com, postmaster@disneyworldpleasureisland.com, postmaster@disneyworldsafari.com, postmaster@disneyworldsanimalkingdom.com, postmaster@disneyworldsepcot.com, postmaster@disneyworldsepcotcenter.com, postmaster@disneyworldsgolf.com, postmaster@disneyworldshops.com, postmaster@disneyworldslodging.com, postmaster@disneyworldsmagickingdom.com, postmaster@disneyworldsmgm.com, postmaster@disneyworldsrestaurants.com, postmaster@disneyworldsshopping.com, postmaster@disneyworldsstores.com, postmaster@disneyworldstickets.com, postmaster@disneyworldstores.com, postmaster@disneyworldsvacation.com, postmaster@disneyworldsvacations.com, postmaster@waltdisneycalifornia.com, postmaster@waltdisneyproperties.com, postmaster@waltdisneyscharacters.com, postmaster@waltdisneyshotels.com, postmaster@waltdisneysmickeymouse.com, postmaster@waltdisneysresorts.com and postmaster@waltdisneysvacations.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 15, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. The domain names that Respondent registered, <disneyworldcelebration.com>, <disneyworldcelebrations.com>, <disneyairfare.com>, <disneyairlinetickets.com>, <disneyairtravel.com>, <disneygolfing.com>, <disneysfilms.com>, <disneysgolf.com>, <disneysgolfpackages.com>, <disneysreservations.com>, <disneysresorts.com>, <disneysrestaurants.com>, <disneysstores.com>, <disneyworldafricansafari.com>, <disneyworldairfare.com>, <disneyworldairlines.com>, <disneyworldairlinetickets.com>, <disneyworldanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldcharacters.com>, <disneyworldconferences.com>, <disneyworldepcot.com>, <disneyworldepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldgolfpackages.com>, <disneyworldhumanresources.com>, <disneyworldpleasureisland.com>, <disneyworldsafari.com>, <disneyworldsanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldsepcot.com>, <disneyworldsepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldsgolf.com>, <disneyworldshops.com>, <disneyworldslodging.com>, <disneyworldsmagickingdom.com>, <disneyworldsmgm.com>, <disneyworldsrestaurants.com>, <disneyworldsshopping.com>, <disneyworldsstores.com>, <disneyworldstickets.com>, <disneyworldstores.com>, <disneyworldsvacation.com>, <disneyworldsvacations.com>, <waltdisneycalifornia.com>, <waltdisneyproperties.com>, <waltdisneyscharacters.com>, <waltdisneyshotels.com>, <waltdisneysmickeymouse.com>, <waltdisneysresorts.com> and <waltdisneysvacations.com>, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <disneyworldcelebration.com>, <disneyworldcelebrations.com>, <disneyairfare.com>, <disneyairlinetickets.com>, <disneyairtravel.com>, <disneygolfing.com>, <disneysfilms.com>, <disneysgolf.com>, <disneysgolfpackages.com>, <disneysreservations.com>, <disneysresorts.com>, <disneysrestaurants.com>, <disneysstores.com>, <disneyworldafricansafari.com>, <disneyworldairfare.com>, <disneyworldairlines.com>, <disneyworldairlinetickets.com>, <disneyworldanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldcharacters.com>, <disneyworldconferences.com>, <disneyworldepcot.com>, <disneyworldepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldgolfpackages.com>, <disneyworldhumanresources.com>, <disneyworldpleasureisland.com>, <disneyworldsafari.com>, <disneyworldsanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldsepcot.com>, <disneyworldsepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldsgolf.com>, <disneyworldshops.com>, <disneyworldslodging.com>, <disneyworldsmagickingdom.com>, <disneyworldsmgm.com>, <disneyworldsrestaurants.com>, <disneyworldsshopping.com>, <disneyworldsstores.com>, <disneyworldstickets.com>, <disneyworldstores.com>, <disneyworldsvacation.com>, <disneyworldsvacations.com>, <waltdisneycalifornia.com>, <waltdisneyproperties.com>, <waltdisneyscharacters.com>, <waltdisneyshotels.com>, <waltdisneysmickeymouse.com>, <waltdisneysresorts.com> and <waltdisneysvacations.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <disneyworldcelebration.com>, <disneyworldcelebrations.com>, <disneyairfare.com>, <disneyairlinetickets.com>, <disneyairtravel.com>, <disneygolfing.com>, <disneysfilms.com>, <disneysgolf.com>, <disneysgolfpackages.com>, <disneysreservations.com>, <disneysresorts.com>, <disneysrestaurants.com>, <disneysstores.com>, <disneyworldafricansafari.com>, <disneyworldairfare.com>, <disneyworldairlines.com>, <disneyworldairlinetickets.com>, <disneyworldanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldcharacters.com>, <disneyworldconferences.com>, <disneyworldepcot.com>, <disneyworldepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldgolfpackages.com>, <disneyworldhumanresources.com>, <disneyworldpleasureisland.com>, <disneyworldsafari.com>, <disneyworldsanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldsepcot.com>, <disneyworldsepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldsgolf.com>, <disneyworldshops.com>, <disneyworldslodging.com>, <disneyworldsmagickingdom.com>, <disneyworldsmgm.com>, <disneyworldsrestaurants.com>, <disneyworldsshopping.com>, <disneyworldsstores.com>, <disneyworldstickets.com>, <disneyworldstores.com>, <disneyworldsvacation.com>, <disneyworldsvacations.com>, <waltdisneycalifornia.com>, <waltdisneyproperties.com>, <waltdisneyscharacters.com>, <waltdisneyshotels.com>, <waltdisneysmickeymouse.com>, <waltdisneysresorts.com> and <waltdisneysvacations.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Disney Enterprises, Inc., owns hundreds of registrations of the DISNEY mark and other related marks in numerous jurisdictions around the world. In particular, Complainant registered the DISNEY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,162,727 issued July 28, 1981). Complainant offers children’s entertainment, goods and services including movies, television programs, books, and merchandise. Additionally, a group of resort destinations and vacation programs are offered by Complainant under the DISNEY mark.
“Disneyland” is a resort theme park in
The <disneyairlinetickets.com>,
<disneyworldafricansafari.com>, <disneyworldairfare.com>,
<disneyworldairlines.com>, <disneyworldepcot.com>, <disneyworldpleasureisland.com>,
<disneyworldsafari.com>, <disneyworldshops.com>, and <disneyworldstores.com>,
domain names were registered on August
17, 2006. The <disneyworldcelebration.com>,
<disneyworldcelebrations.com>, <disneyworldanimalkingdom.com>,
and <disneyworldepcotcenter.com> domain names were registered on August 18, 2006. The <disneyairfare.com>,
<disneyairtravel.com>, <disneygolfing.com>, <disneysfilms.com>,
<disneysgolf.com>, <disneysgolfpackages.com>, <disneysreservations.com>,
<disneysresorts.com>, <disneysrestaurants.com>, <disneysstores.com>,
<disneyworldairlinetickets.com>, <disneyworldcharacters.com>,
<disneyworldconferences.com>, <disneyworldgolfpackages.com>,
<disneyworldhumanresources.com>, <disneyworldsanimalkingdom.com>,
<disneyworldsepcot.com>, <disneyworldsepcotcenter.com>,
<disneyworldsgolf.com>, <disneyworldslodging.com>, <disneyworldsmagickingdom.com>,
<disneyworldsmgm.com>, <disneyworldsrestaurants.com>,
<disneyworldsshopping.com>, <disneyworldsstores.com>,
<disneyworldstickets.com>, <disneyworldsvacation.com>,
<disneyworldsvacations.com>, <waltdisneycalifornia.com>,
<waltdisneyproperties.com>, <waltdisneyscharacters.com>,
<waltdisneyshotels.com>, <waltdisneysmickeymouse.com>,
<waltdisneysresorts.com> and <waltdisneysvacations.com>
domain names were registered August 19,
2006. All of the disputed domain names
redirect Internet users to the <vacationdestinyusa.com> domain name,
where a series of links to third-parties are displayed. Most of these third-parties offer services
and goods in direct competition with those offered under Complainant’s DISNEY
mark.
Respondent has also
been the subject of previous UDRP proceedings, wherein Respondent was found to
have registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. See
e.g., Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kiesinger, FA 1080245 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct.
31, 2007).
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.
Complainant established its rights in the DISNEY mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kudrna, FA 686103 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the complainant’s registration of the DISNEY trademark with the USPTO prior to the respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is sufficient to prove that the complainant has rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Smart Design LLC v. Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000) (holding that ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require the complainant to demonstrate ‘exclusive rights,’ but only that the complainant has a bona fide basis for making the complaint in the first place).
All of the disputed domain names incorporate the DISNEY mark
in its entirety and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” However, gTLDs are not considered relevant to
a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA
914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the addition of a gTLD,
whether it be “.com,” “.net,” “.biz,” or “.org,” is irrelevant to a Policy ¶
4(a)(i) analysis). Each disputed domain
name then includes a term or terms that have a direct relation to the products
and services offered under the DISNEY mark.
Similarly, this does not distinguish a disputed domain name. See Disney
Enters. Inc. v. McSherry, FA 154589 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003)
(finding the <disneyvacationvillas.com> domain name to be confusingly
similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark because it incorporated Complainant’s
entire famous mark and merely added two terms to it); see also Disney Enters. 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 Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell,
AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the
respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term
that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business). Accordingly, the Panel finds that all of the
disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Before the burden shifts to Respondent to answer the Complaint and demonstrate why it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, Complainant must establish a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”); see also Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant under Policy ¶ 4(c), the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds that Complainant met this threshold and the
burden has therefore shifted to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. However, Respondent failed to reply to the
Complaint. In such circumstances, the
Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain names, but the Panel nonetheless examines the record in
consideration of the elements listed under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Pavillion
Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000)
(finding that the respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an
admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); 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.”).
Nothing in the WHOIS record for any of the disputed domain
names indicates that Respondent is or ever was commonly known by any of the
disputed domain names. Additionally,
Complainant has never authorized or granted license to Respondent to use the
DISNEY mark in any way. As a result of
both of these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly
known by any of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback,
FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to
establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com>
domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names
featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is
commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Braun Corp. v. Loney,
FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was
not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as
well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the
respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant
had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its
registered mark).
All of the disputed domain names redirect Internet users to
the <vacationdestinyusa.com>
domain name, where a series of links to third-parties are displayed. These links advertise and offer services or
products that are in direct competition with those offered under Complainant’s
DISNEY mark. The Panel may presume that
such a use commercially benefits Respondent through either “click-through” fees
or a “pay-per-click” scheme and therefore constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. balata inc,
FA 888649 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2007) (finding that “using the confusingly
similar <viaggidea.com> domain
name to operate a website that
features links to various commercial websites from which Respondent presumably
receives referral fees….is neither a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see
also Disney Enters., Inc. v.
Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the
operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was
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 also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop,
FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s
diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own
website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was
neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names).
The Panel finds that Complainant established the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Previous panels have already transferred a disputed domain
name from Respondent to Complainant. See
Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kiesinger, FA 1080245 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 31, 2007). The Panel finds that this is sufficient to
establish a pattern of registering infringing domain names. See Arai
Helmet Americas, Inc. v. Goldmark, D2004-1028 (WIPO Jan. 22, 2005 (finding that “Respondent has registered the
disputed domain name, <aria.com>, to prevent Complainant from registering
it” and taking notice of another Policy proceeding against the respondent to
find that “this is part of a pattern of such registrations”). Moreover, many panels have found that one instance of registering
multiple infringing domain names is sufficient to establish a pattern as
well. See Harcourt, Inc. v.
Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one
instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the
burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). And finally, all of the disputed domain names
were registered in a three-day period from August 17, 2006 through August 19,
2006, which is further evidence of a pattern sufficient for the purpose of
establishing Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Caterpillar Inc. v. Miyar, FA 95623 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2000) (finding that registering multiple
domain names in a short time frame indicates an intention to prevent the mark
holder from using its mark and provides evidence of a pattern of conduct). As a consequence of all of this, the Panel
finds that a pattern has been established of Respondent registering and using
infringing domain names. As such, the
Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names
in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
The disputed domain
names all redirect Internet users to the <vacationdestinyusa.com> domain
name. The website at this domain name
displays a series of links to Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds this diversionary use of the
disputed domain names is intended to disrupt Complainant’s business, and
accordingly finds it to be additional evidence of Respondent’s bad faith
registration and use of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii). See David Hall Rare Coins v.
And finally, the
diversionary use of the disputed domain names is presumed to commercially benefit
Respondent through “click-through” fees or some other “pay-per-click”
scheme. The Panel finds such a commercial
benefit arising out of confusingly similar domain names is further evidence of
Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen,
FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s
previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a
web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably
commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet
users to third-party websites); see also
Ass’n of Junior Leagues Int’l Inc. v. This Domain Name My Be For
The Panel finds that Complainant established 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 <disneyworldcelebration.com>, <disneyworldcelebrations.com>, <disneyairfare.com>, <disneyairlinetickets.com>, <disneyairtravel.com>, <disneygolfing.com>, <disneysfilms.com>, <disneysgolf.com>, <disneysgolfpackages.com>, <disneysreservations.com>, <disneysresorts.com>, <disneysrestaurants.com>, <disneysstores.com>, <disneyworldafricansafari.com>, <disneyworldairfare.com>, <disneyworldairlines.com>, <disneyworldairlinetickets.com>, <disneyworldanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldcharacters.com>, <disneyworldconferences.com>, <disneyworldepcot.com>, <disneyworldepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldgolfpackages.com>, <disneyworldhumanresources.com>, <disneyworldpleasureisland.com>, <disneyworldsafari.com>, <disneyworldsanimalkingdom.com>, <disneyworldsepcot.com>, <disneyworldsepcotcenter.com>, <disneyworldsgolf.com>, <disneyworldshops.com>, <disneyworldslodging.com>, <disneyworldsmagickingdom.com>, <disneyworldsmgm.com>, <disneyworldsrestaurants.com>, <disneyworldsshopping.com>, <disneyworldsstores.com>, <disneyworldstickets.com>, <disneyworldstores.com>, <disneyworldsvacation.com>, <disneyworldsvacations.com>, <waltdisneycalifornia.com>, <waltdisneyproperties.com>, <waltdisneyscharacters.com>, <waltdisneyshotels.com>, <waltdisneysmickeymouse.com>, <waltdisneysresorts.com> and <waltdisneysvacations.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: August 13, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum