Yahoo! Inc. v. Yin Sung
Claim Number: FA0807001218166
Complainant is Yahoo! Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David
M. Kelly, of Finnegan,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <omgyahoo.com> and <yahooomg.com>, registered with eNom, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 30, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 31, 2008.
On August 5, 2008, eNom, Inc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <omgyahoo.com> and <yahooomg.com> domain names are registered with eNom, Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. eNom, Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 August 6, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 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@omgyahoo.com and postmaster@yahooomg.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 2, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <omgyahoo.com> and <yahooomg.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <omgyahoo.com> and <yahooomg.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <omgyahoo.com> and <yahooomg.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Yahoo! Inc., operates an international Internet communications company. Under its YAHOO! mark, Complainant offers a variety of search engine, media, and other communication services. Complainant first registered its YAHOO! mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on February 25, 1997 (Reg. No. 2,040,222). Additionally, Complainant registered its YAHOO! mark with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (“KIPO”) on April 3, 1998 (Reg. No. 42,273). On June 11, 2007, Complainant launched an entertainment and celebrity news service in conjunction with its YAHOO! mark entitled “OMG!”. Complainant has provided multiple news articles regarding the launch of its services on June 11, 2007.
On June 11, 2007, the same date Complainant launched its OMG! service, Respondent registered the disputed domain names. Respondent’s disputed domain names each resolve to websites which offer Internet search services that compete 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 has provided evidence of several registrations of its YAHOO! mark with the USPTO and the KIPO. Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in its YAHOO! mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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."); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Respondent’s disputed domain names each contain Complainant’s YAHOO! mark with the deletion of the exclamation point and the additions of “omg,” and the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds the term “omg,” is descriptive of one of Complainant’s services offered in conjunction with its YAHOO! mark. The Panel finds the deletion of punctuation, such as an exclamation point that is a prohibited character in a domain name, is immaterial when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. Additionally, the Panel finds the addition of a generic top-level domain such as “.com” is not legally relevant in determining whether the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because a top-level domain is a requirement of every domain name. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business); 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant is required to produce a prima facie case and then the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to demonstrate it does possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds Complainant has established a sufficient prima facie case. Respondent has failed to submit a Response to these proceedings. Therefore, without further evidence the Panel may infer Complainant’s allegations are true. The Panel, however, will examine the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See 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); see also Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Domain For Sale VMI, D2000-1195 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (“In the absence of direct evidence, the complainant and the panel must resort to reasonable inferences from whatever evidence is in the record. In addition . . . Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules [authorizes] a panel to draw such inferences from respondent’s failure to respond ‘as it considers appropriate.’”).
Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites offering Internet search services that compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to offer competing services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a pay-per-click search engine, in competition with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Clear Channel Commc’ns, Inc. v. Beaty Enters., FA 135008 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2003) (finding that the respondent, as a competitor of the complainant, had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that utilized the complainant’s mark for its competing website).
Additionally, Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Yin Sung.” The record does not indicate Complainant has authorized Respondent to use its YAHOO! mark in any manner. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain names each resolve to a website that offers Internet search services that compete with Complainant’s services. The Panel finds Respondent’s actions constitute disruption and are evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Surface Prot. Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between the complainant and the respondent, the respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt the complainant's business and create user confusion); 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 confusingly similar disputed domain names to operate Internet search engines in competition with Complainant. Respondent presumably is compensated for this business endeavor. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent is attempting to profit from the goodwill Complainant has established in its YAHOO! mark in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Shafir, FA 196119 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“As Respondent is using the domain name at issue in direct competition with Complainant, and giving the impression of being affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant, this circumstance qualifies as bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”).
Furthermore, Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the same day Complainant announced its new OMG! services under its YAHOO! mark. The Panel finds this is not a mere coincidence, but is indicative of opportunistic bad faith registration and use on the part of Respondent pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Sota v. Waldron, D2001-0351 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s registration of the <seveballesterostrophy.com> domain name at the time of the announcement of the Seve Ballesteros Trophy golf tournament “strongly indicates an opportunistic registration”); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) 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 <omgyahoo.com> and <yahooomg.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: September 11, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum