Santarus, Inc. v. St Kitts Registry
Claim Number: FA0806001210668
Complainant is Santarus, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Dave
Deonarine, of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <zegarid.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, 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.
James A. Crary as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 18, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 19, 2008.
On June 25, 2008, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <zegarid.com> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, 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 July
3, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
July 23, 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@zegarid.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 29, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A Crary 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 <zegarid.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZEGERID mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <zegarid.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <zegarid.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Santarus, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company specializing in acquiring, developing and commercializing products for gastrointestinal diseases and disorders. Complainant has marketed treatments under the ZEGERID mark since 2004 and holds a registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,929,881 issued March 1, 2005, filed November 24, 2003). Complainant has invested significant amounts in advertising and promoting its products under the ZEGERID mark, has attained commercial success with these products, and has become closely linked with the ZEGERID mark. In addition, Complainant promotes its ZEGERID products on its website that resolves from the <zegerid.com> domain name.
Respondent registered the <zegarid.com> domain name on February 22, 2005. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which are in competition with Complainant.
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.
Complainant holds a registration of the ZEGERID mark with
the USPTO. Although Respondent
registered the <zegarid.com>
domain name before the registration date of Complainant’s mark, the relevant
date for the purposes of establishing rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
is the filing date of the trademark application. 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 Phoenix Mortgage Corp. v. Toggas, D2001-0101 (WIPO Mar. 30,
2001) (“The effective date of Complainant's federal rights is . . . the filing
date of its issued registration. Although it might be possible to establish
rights prior to that date based on use, Complainant has submitted insufficient
evidence to prove common law rights before the filing date of its federal
registration.”). Here, the filing date
of Complainant’s ZEGERID mark is November 24, 2003, which antedates
Respondent’s registration date of February 22, 2005 of the disputed domain
name. Therefore, the Panel finds that
Complainant has sufficiently established rights in the ZEGERID mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by obtaining a registration of this mark with the USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP
Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb.
18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes
Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see
also 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.”).
The <zegarid.com> domain name contains a misspelling of Complainant’s ZEGERID mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is merely a common misspelling of Complainant’s mark and, accordingly, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); see also Compaq Info. Techs. Group, L.P. v. Seocho, FA 103879 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (finding that the domain name <compq.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s COMPAQ mark because the omission of the letter “a” in the domain name does not significantly change the overall impression of the mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
From the outset, Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <zegarid.com> domain name. Thereafter, the burden then shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed 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 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).”).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name and its
corresponding website to display hyperlinks to various third-party websites,
some of which are in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel, accordingly, infers that Respondent
receives click-through fees for these links.
The practice of displaying hyperlinks to receive click-through fees,
especially in this case, where some of the links send users to Complainant’s
competitors is not a bona fide
offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and is not a legitimate
noncommercial or fair 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 WeddingChannel.com
Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that
the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to
redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark,
websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each
misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or
services as contemplated by the Policy).
Furthermore, Respondent’s WHOIS information does not indicate that it is commonly known by the <zegarid.com> domain name, nor is there any other information in the record to indicate otherwise. In addition, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s ZEGERID mark and that it is not affiliated in any way with Respondent. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <zegarid.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").
Finally, the <zegarid.com>
domain name takes advantage of a common misspelling of Complainant’s ZEGERID
mark, which is commonly known as “typosquatting.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) because it
uses a “typosquatted” version of Complainant’s mark to divert users its own
website. See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v.
Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain
name, a typosquatted version of the complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was
evidence in and of itself that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name vis á vis the complainant); see also Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v.
Zuccarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (finding that fair use does not
apply where the domain names are misspellings of the complainant's mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
is using the disputed domain to divert Internet users to its website. The Panel finds that this practice creates a
likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed
domain name and its corresponding website and 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).
Furthermore, the Panel finds that
because Respondent receives click-through fees from the hyperlinks displayed on
the website that resolves from the disputed domain name Respondent commercially
benefitted from these fee, and, accordingly Respondent’s practice constitutes
bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Qwest Comm’ns Int’l Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing,
FA 187431 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent has attempted to
commercially benefit from the misleading <qwestwirless.com> domain name
by linking the domain name to adult oriented websites, gambling websites, and
websites in competition with Complainant.
Respondent’s attempt to commercially benefit from the misleading domain
name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's
prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> 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.’”).
In addition, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <zegarid.com> domain name constitutes a bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because it takes advantage of a common misspelling of Complainant’s ZEGERID mark to earn click-through fees. See Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy 4 ¶ (a)(iii)); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”).
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 <zegarid.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Crary, Panelist
Dated: August 6, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum