LFP Internet Group LLC; and L.F.P. Inc.; and LFP IP LLC v. cams, cam
Claim Number: FA0809001222973
Complainant is LFP Internet Group LLC; and L.F.P. Inc.;
and LFP IP LLC (collectively
“Complainant”), represented by Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <hustlerreview.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com.
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 4, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 9, 2008.
On September 5, 2008, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <hustlerreview.com> domain name is registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com 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 September 25, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 15, 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@hustlerreview.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 22, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 <hustlerreview.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HUSTLER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <hustlerreview.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <hustlerreview.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, L.F.P., Inc. has used its HUSTLER mark for over 35 years in connection with its magazine. Complainant holds a registration of its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,011,001 issued May 20, 1975).
Respondent registered the <hustlerreview.com>
domain name on May 28, 2007. Upon typing
in the disputed domain name, the Internet user is automatically redirected to
another adult-oriented website, which is in direct 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently established its rights in the HUSTLER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it holds a registration of the 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 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 <hustlerreview.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the generic term “review.” The Panel finds that adding this generic term does not distinguish it from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“[T]he fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity [sic] or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0777 (WIPO Oct. 2, 2000) (finding the registration and use of multiple domain names incorporating the distinctive and famous YAHOO!, Yahooligans!, and GeoCities marks, together with generic words such as ‘chat’ and ‘financial’ to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks and likely to mislead Internet users into believing that products and services offered by the respondents are being sponsored or endorsed by YAHOO! or GeoCities, given the similarity of the names and products and services offered).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Initially, Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <hustlerreview.com> domain name. Then the burden shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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’s <hustlerreview.com>
domain name redirects Internet users to an adult-oriented website with a
different domain name, <asiabargirlcams.com>. The Panel finds that this diversion of
Internet users 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 Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu,
FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of
[Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s
goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com,
FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed
domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services
because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to
<visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are
advertised.”).
Furthermore, Respondent’s WHOIS information does not indicate that it is commonly known by the <hustlerreview.com> domain name, and Respondent has not presented any evidence to suggest otherwise. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed 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 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").
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the confusingly similar <hustlerreview.com> domain name to
redirect users to a website that is in competition with Complainant. Thus, the Panel finds that there is a
likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed
domain name, and that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain
name in bad faith under 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.”).
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 <hustlerreview.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: November 5, 2008
National
Arbitration Forum