national arbitration forum




AOL LLC v. Pino Tedesco

Claim Number: FA0806001204912



Complainant is AOL LLC (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis, of Arent Fox LLP, Washington, D.C., USA.  Respondent is Pino Tedesco (“Respondent”), Australia.



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



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.


Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 13, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 16, 2008.


On June 13, 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 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 18, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 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 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 Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.


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 <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INSTANT MESSENGER mark.


2.      Respondent does not have any rights 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, AOL LLC, uses its INSTANT MESSENGER mark (Reg. No. 3,310,193 issued October 16, 2007, filed June 4, 1998), which was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to operate its “instant messaging” services.  Complainant and its predecessor-in-interest have utilized this mark since 1997, and have used it continuously in international commerce by promoting it extensively through its network of websites. 


Respondent registered the <> domain name on April 19, 2006, and is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website that offers advertisements for Complainant’s competitors.


Respondent has also been the respondent in other UDRP cases in which the disputed domain names were transferred to the complainants in those cases.



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.


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar


Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the INSTANT MESSENGER mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.  While Complainant’s trademark registration date does not predate the registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant’s trademark filing date does.  Previous panels have held that the relevant date in an approved trademark is the mark’s filing date.  See Planetary Soc’y v. Rosillo, D2001-1228 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2002) (holding that the effective date of Complainant’s trademark rights date back to the application’s filing date); see also J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960, 144 U.S.P.Q. 435 (C.C.P.A. 1965) (registration on the Principal Register is prima facie proof of continual use of the mark, dating back to the filing date of the application for registration).  As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has sufficient rights in the mark through its registration with the USPTO in order to achieve UDRP standing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.").


Respondent’s <> domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire and unaltered INSTANT MESSENGER mark, while adding the generic word “site,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  The addition of a gTLD is irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See 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).  Moreover, the addition of a generic word such as “site” does not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), often because the mark remains the controlling feature.  See Westfield Corp. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <> domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element).  In this case, the disputed domain name’s dominant component is Complainant’s entire mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).


The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.


Rights or Legitimate Interests


The Panel finds that Complainant has successfully met its burden of asserting a prima facie case supporting its allegations that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and therefore Respondent receives the burden of proving its rights or legitimate interests.  See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); 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).


Respondent’s <> domain name merely resolves to a website that features third-party advertisements for businesses that compete with Complainant’s services.  Respondent presumably benefits from this endeavor through the receipt of referral fees.  Previous panels have consistently held that such a use cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names).  For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).


There is no evidence within the record for the Panel to conclude that Respondent is or ever was known by the disputed domain name.  Even the registrant of record in the WHOIS information is listed as “Pino Tedesco,” which bears no similarity to the disputed domain name.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under 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).


The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith


Respondent has been the respondent in other UDRP cases in which the disputed domain names have been transferred to the complainants in those cases.  See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Tedesco Property Group, FA 1055155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2007); see also Enter. Rent-A-Car v. Tedesco, FA 1179220 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2008).  Typically, respondents engaging in a pattern of registering domain names incorporating third-party trademarks do so to prevent those trademark holders from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names.  The Panel finds that Respondent has continued its pattern in this case as well, which evidences Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assocs., FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names that infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks); see also Australian Stock Exch. v. Cmty. Internet (Australia) Pty Ltd, D2000-1384 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent registered multiple infringing domain names containing the trademarks or service marks of other widely known Australian businesses).


Respondent’s <> domain name resolves to a website that promotes Complainant’s competitors via third-party advertisements.  Because there are no other features in the corresponding website, the Panel finds that Respondent primarily intended to disrupt Complainant’s business, which constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Mission KwaSizabantu v. Rost, D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (defining “competitor” as “one who acts in opposition to another and the context does not imply or demand any restricted meaning such as commercial or business competitor”); see also S. Exposure v. S.  Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the complainant, a competitor of the respondent).


Internet users that happen across the disputed domain name seeking Complainant will be diverted to Respondent’s corresponding website and be confronted with links to Complainant’s competitors.  Respondent benefits when these Internet users “click-through” the advertisements.  Internet users that land on this website will likely be confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with or endorsement of Respondent.  Therefore, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation and endorsement of the disputed domain name and corresponding website.  See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Warren, FA 204147 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (“Although Complainant’s principal website is <>, many Internet users are likely to use search engines to find Complainant’s website, only to be mislead to Respondent’s website at the <> domain name, which features links for competing real estate websites.  Therefore, it is likely that Internet users seeking Complainant’s website, but who end up at Respondent’s website, will be confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website.”); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”).


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 <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  July 24, 2008



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum