Time Warner, Inc. v. Domain Park Limited a/k/a Hostmaster Hostmaster
Claim Number: FA0810001230627
Complainant is Time
Warner, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis, of Arent Fox LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <timewarnercablene.com>, <worldcnn.com>, <icq-toolz.com>,
<icq-spy.biz>, <aolbargin.com>, <aoltvguide.com>,
<aolmusuic.com>, <aolclip.com>, <emapquest.com>,
<mapqeusr.com>, <mapqwwest.com>, <mapsquast.com>,
<map20quest.com>, <cartoonnetwetwork.com> and
<aimmovement.org>, registered with Rebel.com; <icqcenter.info>, <turnerclassicnetwork.com>,
<aolraio.com> and <qmapquest.com>, registered with Moniker
Online Services, Inc.; and <netscapespamblocker.com>, registered
with Adoptadomain.net, 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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 23, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 28, 2008.
On October 24, 2008, Rebel.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <timewarnercablene.com>, <worldcnn.com>, <icq-toolz.com>, <icq-spy.biz>, <aolbargin.com>, <aoltvguide.com>, <aolmusuic.com>, <aolclip.com>, <emapquest.com>, <mapqeusr.com>, <mapqwwest.com>, <mapsquast.com>, <map20quest.com>, <cartoonnetwetwork.com> and <aimmovement.org> domain names are registered with Rebel.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Rebel.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Rebel.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 October 24, 2008, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <icqcenter.info>, <turnerclassicnetwork.com>, <aolraio.com> and <qmapquest.com> domain names are registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 the Policy.
On October 24, 2008, Adoptadomain.net, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <netscapespamblocker.com> domain name is registered with Adoptadomain.net, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Adoptadomain.net, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Adoptadomain.net, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On November 6, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 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@timewarnercablene.com, postmaster@worldcnn.com, postmaster@turnerclassicnetwork.com, postmaster@icq-toolz.com, postmaster@icqcenter.info, postmaster@icq-spy.biz, postmaster@aolraio.com, postmaster@aolbargin.com, postmaster@aoltvguide.com, postmaster@aolmusuic.com, postmaster@aolclip.com, postmaster@qmapquest.com, postmaster@emapquest.com, postmaster@mapqeusr.com, postmaster@mapqwwest.com, postmaster@mapsquast.com, postmaster@map20quest.com, postmaster@aimmovement.org, postmaster@cartoonnetwetwork.com, postmaster@netscapespamblocker.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 5, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 <timewarnercablene.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark; Respondent’s <worldcnn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CNN mark; Respondent’s <turnerclassicnetwork.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES mark; Respondent’s <icq-toolz.com>, <icqcenter.info> and <icq-spy.biz> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ICQ mark; Respondent’s <aolraio.com>, <aolbargin.com>, <aoltvguide.com>, <aolmusuic.com> and <aolclip.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark; Respondent’s <qmapquest.com>, <emapquest.com>, <mapqeusr.com>, <mapqwwest.com>, <mapsquast.com> and <map20quest.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MAPQUEST mark; Respondent’s <aimmovement.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIM mark; Respondent’s <cartoonnetwetwork.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARTOON NETWORK mark; and Respondent’s <netscapespamblocker.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NETSCAPE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <timewarnercablene.com>, <worldcnn.com>, <turnerclassicnetwork.com>, <icq-toolz.com>, <icqcenter.info>, <icq-spy.biz>, <aolraio.com>, <aolbargin.com>, <aoltvguide.com>, <aolmusuic.com>, <aolclip.com>, <qmapquest.com>, <emapquest.com>, <mapqeusr.com>, <mapqwwest.com>, <mapsquast.com>, <map20quest.com>, <aimmovement.org>, <cartoonnetwetwork.com> and <netscapespamblocker.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <timewarnercablene.com>, <worldcnn.com>, <turnerclassicnetwork.com>, <icq-toolz.com>, <icqcenter.info>, <icq-spy.biz>, <aolraio.com>, <aolbargin.com>, <aoltvguide.com>, <aolmusuic.com>, <aolclip.com>, <qmapquest.com>, <emapquest.com>, <mapqeusr.com>, <mapqwwest.com>, <mapsquast.com>, <map20quest.com>, <aimmovement.org>, <cartoonnetwetwork.com> and <netscapespamblocker.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Time Warner, Inc., is a media company that owns through its subsidiaries, licensees, affiliates, and predecessors-in-interest the registrations for the following marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”):
|
TIME WARNER CABLE |
Reg. No. 1,816,474 issued January 11, 1994 |
|
CNN |
Reg. No. 1,597,839 issued May 22, 1990 |
|
TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES |
Reg. No. 1,960,664 issued March 5, 1996 |
|
ICQ |
Reg. No. 2,411,657 issued December 10, 2000 |
|
AOL |
Reg. No. 1,977,731 issued June 4, 1996 |
|
MAPQUEST |
Reg. No. 2,129,378 issued January 13, 1998 |
|
AIM |
Reg. No. 2,423,367 issued January 23, 2001 |
|
CARTOON NETWORK |
Reg. No. 1,798,899 issued October 12, 1993 |
|
NETSCAPE |
Reg. No. 2,027,552 issued December 31, 1996 |
Complainant also owns and operates the <timewarner.com>, <cnn.com>, <turnerclassicmovies.com>, <icq.com>, <aol.com> <mapquest.com>, <aim.com>, <cartoonnetwork.com> and <netscape.com> domain names in connection with its businesses.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on their respective dates:
<timewarnercablene.com> (October 6, 2007); <worldcnn.com> (April
15, 2007); <icq-toolz.com> (February
2, 2007); <icq-spy.biz> (October 13, 2007); <aolbargin.com>
(July 16, 2007); <aoltvguide.com> (Febryart 12, 2007); <aolmusuic.com>
(April 10, 2007); <aolclip.com> (November 29, 2006); <emapquest.com>
(February 17, 2007); <mapqeusr.com> (January 16, 2007); <mapqwwest.com>
(July 1, 2007); <mapsquast.com> (April 27, 2007); <map20quest.com>
(October 24, 2007); <cartoonnetwetwork.com> (September 18, 2007); <aimmovement.org>
(July 1, 2007); <icqcenter.info> (February 11, 2008); <turnerclassicnetwork.com>
(April 30, 2007); <aolraio.com> (August 22, 2007); <qmapquest.com> (January 15, 2007); and
<netscapespamblocker.com> (July 15, 2008). Respondent is using the disputed
domain names to resolve to websites that display third-party links and
advertisements for Complainant’s competitors.
Respondent has been the respondent in numerous other UDRP proceedings in which the disputed domain names were transferred from Respondent to the respective complainants in those cases. See, e.g., Hubbell Inc. v. Domain Park Ltd., FA 846861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 3, 2007); see also Citizens Fin. Group, Inc. v. Domain Park Ltd., FA 975307 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 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."
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’s registrations of the TIME WARNER CABLE, CNN, TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES, ICQ, AOL, MAPQUEST, AIM, CARTOON NETWORK, and NETSCAPE marks with the USPTO confers upon Complainant sufficient rights in the marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 <timewarnercablene.com>
contains Complainant’s entire TIME WARNER CABLE mark, while adding the letters
“ne” and the generic top-level domain “.com.”
The Panel finds neither addition to be significant, and therefore the
Panel finds that Respondent’s <timewarnercablene.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nev. State Bank v. Modern
Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic
top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is
identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tullo, FA 150811 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Apr. 15, 2003) (finding that the <3daol.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark because “…the addition of the
prefix ‘3d’ does nothing to ‘distinguish’ Respondent’s domain name from
Complainant’s registered trademarks.”).
Respondent’s <worldcnn.com>
domain name contains Complainant’s entire CNN mark while adding the generic
word “world” and the generic top-level domain name “.com” The Panel finds that the addition of the
generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant.
See Nev. State
Bank, supra. The Panel also finds that the addition of a
generic word does not create any meaningful distinction. See Am. Express Co. v.
MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the
respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive
word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s <worldcnn.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s CNN mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <turnerclassicnetwork.com> domain name contains Complainant’s TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES mark while substituting the word “movies” for the word “network,” and adding the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant. See Nev. State Bank, supra.
Moreover, the Panel finds that this word substitution also creates no meaningful distinction under the Policy. See Down E. Enter. Inc. v. Countywide Commc’ns, FA 96613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2001) (finding the domain name <downeastmagazine.com> confusingly similar to the complainant’s common law mark DOWN EAST, THE MAGAZINE OF MAINE). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s <turnerclassicnetwork.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <icq-toolz.com>, <icqcenter.info> and <icq-spy.biz> domain names contain Complainant’s ICQ mark while adding a hyphen, the top-level domains “.com,” “.info,” or “.biz,” and generic and/or misspelled words “toolz,” “center,” or “spy.” The Panel finds that the addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant. See Nev. State Bank, supra. Moreover, the addition of a hyphen is equally immaterial. See Teleplace, Inc. v. De Oliveira, FA 95835 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the domain names <teleplace.org>, <tele-place.com>, and <theteleplace.com> are confusingly similar to the complainant’s TELEPLACE trademark). Finally, the Panel notes that added generic words, even if misspelled, are insufficient to create a distinction of meaning. See Am. Express Co., supra. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <icq-toolz.com>, <icqcenter.info> and <icq-spy.biz> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ICQ mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <aolraio.com>, <aolbargin.com>, <aoltvguide.com>, <aolmusuic.com> and <aolclip.com> domain names contain Complainant’s AOL mark while adding the generic top-level domain “.com,” and the generic and/or misspelled words “raio,” “bargin,” “tv,” “guide,” “musuic,” and/or “clip.” The Panel finds that the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant. See Nev. State Bank, supra.
Also, the Panel notes that added generic words, even if misspelled, are insufficient to create a distinction of meaning. See Am. Express Co., supra. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <aolraio.com>, <aolbargin.com>, <aoltvguide.com>, <aolmusuic.com> and <aolclip.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <qmapquest.com>, <emapquest.com>, <mapqeusr.com>, <mapqwwest.com>, <mapsquast.com> and <map20quest.com> domain names contain Complainant’s MAPQUEST mark in its entirety or misspelled form while adding letters or numbers such as “q,” “e,” “w,” “s,” or “20,” and the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant. See Nev. State Bank, supra. Moreover, the misspelling of Complainant’s MAPQUEST mark is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names as the misspellings remain phonetically equivalent. See Hotwire, Inc. v. Wilder, FA 741901 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 7, 2006) (finding the <heatwire.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s HOTWIRE.COM mark, as the disputed domain name was pronounced similarly to the complainant’s mark and was also a misspelled variation of it). Finally, the Panel notes that the addition of letters or numbers is insufficient to create a distinction of note. See Am. Online, Inc., supra. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <qmapquest.com>, <emapquest.com>, <mapqeusr.com>, <mapqwwest.com>, <mapsquast.com> and <map20quest.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MAPQUEST mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <aimmovement.org> domain name contains Complainant’s AIM mark, while adding the generic word “movement” and the generic top-level domain “.org.” The Panel finds that the addition of the generic top-level domain “.org” is irrelevant. See Nev. State Bank, supra. Moreover, the Panel finds that the addition of a generic word is insufficient. See Am. Express Co., supra. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <aimmovement.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <cartoonnetwetwork.com> domain name contains Complainant’s CARTOON NETWORK mark, while adding the generic word “wet” and the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant. See Nev. State Bank, supra. Moreover, the Panel finds that the addition of a generic word is insufficient. See Am. Express Co., supra. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <cartoonnetwetwork.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARTOON NETWORK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <netscapespamblocker.com> domain name contains Complainant’s NETSCAPE mark while adding the generic words “spam” and “blocker,” and adding the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant. See Nev. State Bank, supra. Moreover, the Panel finds that the addition of generic words is insufficient. See Am. Express Co., supra. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <netscapespamblocker.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NETSCAPE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied with respect to each of the disputed domain names.
Complainant has asserted that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Because Complainant has set forth a sufficient prima facie case, Respondent bears the burden of demonstrating that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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 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.”).
There is no evidence within the record that allows the
inference that Respondent is or ever was commonly known by the disputed domain
names. The WHOIS information lists
Respondent as “Domain Park Limited a/k/a Hostmaster Hostmaster.” Moreover, Complainant has not licensed or
permitted Respondent to use its marks in any fashion. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See
Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known
by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record
showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including
the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not
authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name); see also 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).
Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites that feature links to Complainant’s competitors. Respondent presumably receives referral fees for the links provided on the corresponding websites. The Panel finds that Respondent has not created 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 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 Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has been the respondent in
numerous other UDRP proceedings in which the disputed domain names were
transferred from Respondent to the respective complainants in those cases. See,
e.g., Hubbell Inc. v. Domain Park
Ltd., FA 846861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 3, 2007); see also Citizens Fin. Group, Inc. v. Domain Park Ltd., FA 975307
(Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2007). The
Panel finds that Respondent has therefore engaged in a pattern of bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Westcoast Contempo
Fashions Ltd. v.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain
names to resolve to websites that promote Complainant’s competitors through
direct links constitutes disruption of Complainant’s business, which evidences
Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See David
Respondent’s disputed domain names have been found to be
confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.
The Panel finds that Respondent intended to create a likelihood of
confusion as to Complainant’s marks and the disputed domain names for
commercial gain, given the presence of commercial links on the corresponding websites. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has
registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond,
FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting
Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely
profiting); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA
721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in
bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly
similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that
offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <timewarnercablene.com>, <worldcnn.com>, <turnerclassicnetwork.com>, <icq-toolz.com>, <icqcenter.info>, <icq-spy.biz>, <aolraio.com>, <aolbargin.com>, <aoltvguide.com>, <aolmusuic.com>, <aolclip.com>, <qmapquest.com>, <emapquest.com>, <mapqeusr.com>, <mapqwwest.com>, <mapsquast.com>, <map20quest.com>, <aimmovement.org>, <cartoonnetwetwork.com> and <netscapespamblocker.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: December 17, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum