National Cable Satellite Corporation d/b/a C-SPAN v. New Media Nexus c/o Lyle, Rumble
Claim Number: FA0811001236010
Complainant is National Cable Satellite Corporation d/b/a C-SPAN (“Complainant”), represented by Marc
Miller, of McLeod,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are the <c-span-id.com>, <c-span-2.com>, <c-span-3.com>, <cspan-id.com>, <cspan-3.com>, <cspananalysis.com>, <cspanaudiobooks.com>, <cspanaudiomagazines.com>, <cspanaudionewspapers.com>, <cspanblogs.com>, <cspanbooknotes.com>, <cspanbooks.com>, <cspancam.com>, <cspancoverage.com>, <cspandownloads.com>, <cspaneducation.com>, <cspanelectionguide.com>, <cspanfaq.com>, <cspanguide.com>, <cspanid.com>, <cspanjobpostings.com>, <cspanmodel.com>, <cspanmovies.com>, <cspannetwork.com>, <cspanpics.com>, <cspanplan.com>, <cspanpodcasts.com>, <cspanpolitics.com>, <cspanpoll.com>, <cspanprimarycoverage.com>, <cspanproductid.com>, <cspanprogramming.com>, <cspanratings.com>, <cspanreviews.com>, <cspanschedule.com>, <cspansites.com>, <cspansourcecode.com>, <cspanstudentcam.com>, <cspanvideo.com>, <cspanvideoclips.com>, <cspanvideolibrary.com>, <cspanvideotv.com>, <cspanwebsite.com>, <c-spananalysis.com>, <c-spanaudiobooks.com>, <c-spanaudiomagazines.com>, <c-spanaudionewspapers.com>, <c-spanblogs.com>, <c-spanbooknotes.com>, <c-spanbooks.com>, <c-spanbooktv.com>, <c-spancam.com>, <c-spancoverage.com>, <c-spandownloads.com>, <c-spaneducation.com>, <c-spanelectionguide.com>, <c-spanfaq.com>, <c-spanguide.com>, <c-spanid.com>, <c-spanjobpostings.com>, <c-spanjunkie.com>, <c-spanmodel.com>, <c-spanmovies.com>, <c-spannetwork.com>, <c-spanonline.com>, <c-spanpics.com>, <c-spanplan.com>, <c-spanpolitics.com>, <c-spanpoll.com>, <c-spanprimarycoverage.com>, <c-spanproductid.com>, <c-spanprogramming.com>, <c-spanratings.com>, <c-spanreviews.com>, <c-spanschedule.com>, <c-spansites.com>, <c-spansourcecode.com>, <c-spanstudentcam.com>, <c-spanvideoclips.com>, <c-spanvideolibrary.com>, <c-spanvideotv.com>, <c-spanwebsite.com>, <c-span911.com>, <reportc-span.com>, <reportcspan.com>, <reviewc-span.com>, <reviewcspan.com>, <viewc-span.com>, <viewcspan.com>, <watchc-span.com> and <watchcspan.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc.
PANEL
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On November 26, 2008, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <c-span-id.com>, <c-span-2.com>, <c-span-3.com>, <cspan-id.com>, <cspan-3.com>, <cspananalysis.com>, <cspanaudiobooks.com>, <cspanaudiomagazines.com>, <cspanaudionewspapers.com>, <cspanblogs.com>, <cspanbooknotes.com>, <cspanbooks.com>, <cspancam.com>, <cspancoverage.com>, <cspandownloads.com>, <cspaneducation.com>, <cspanelectionguide.com>, <cspanfaq.com>, <cspanguide.com>, <cspanid.com>, <cspanjobpostings.com>, <cspanmodel.com>, <cspanmovies.com>, <cspannetwork.com>, <cspanpics.com>, <cspanplan.com>, <cspanpodcasts.com>, <cspanpolitics.com>, <cspanpoll.com>, <cspanprimarycoverage.com>, <cspanproductid.com>, <cspanprogramming.com>, <cspanratings.com>, <cspanreviews.com>, <cspanschedule.com>, <cspansites.com>, <cspansourcecode.com>, <cspanstudentcam.com>, <cspanvideo.com>, <cspanvideoclips.com>, <cspanvideolibrary.com>, <cspanvideotv.com>, <cspanwebsite.com>, <c-spananalysis.com>, <c-spanaudiobooks.com>, <c-spanaudiomagazines.com>, <c-spanaudionewspapers.com>, <c-spanblogs.com>, <c-spanbooknotes.com>, <c-spanbooks.com>, <c-spanbooktv.com>, <c-spancam.com>, <c-spancoverage.com>, <c-spandownloads.com>, <c-spaneducation.com>, <c-spanelectionguide.com>, <c-spanfaq.com>, <c-spanguide.com>, <c-spanid.com>, <c-spanjobpostings.com>, <c-spanjunkie.com>, <c-spanmodel.com>, <c-spanmovies.com>, <c-spannetwork.com>, <c-spanonline.com>, <c-spanpics.com>, <c-spanplan.com>, <c-spanpolitics.com>, <c-spanpoll.com>, <c-spanprimarycoverage.com>, <c-spanproductid.com>, <c-spanprogramming.com>, <c-spanratings.com>, <c-spanreviews.com>, <c-spanschedule.com>, <c-spansites.com>, <c-spansourcecode.com>, <c-spanstudentcam.com>, <c-spanvideoclips.com>, <c-spanvideolibrary.com>, <c-spanvideotv.com>, <c-spanwebsite.com>, <c-span911.com>, <reportc-span.com>, <reportcspan.com>, <reviewc-span.com>, <reviewcspan.com>, <viewc-span.com>, <viewcspan.com>, <watchc-span.com> and <watchcspan.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 ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On December 3, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 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@c-span-id.com, postmaster@c-span-2.com, postmaster@c-span-3.com, postmaster@cspan-id.com, postmaster@cspan-3.com, postmaster@cspananalysis.com, postmaster@cspanaudiobooks.com, postmaster@cspanaudiomagazines.com, postmaster@cspanaudionewspapers.com, postmaster@cspanblogs.com, postmaster@cspanbooknotes.com, postmaster@cspanbooks.com, postmaster@cspancam.com, postmaster@cspancoverage.com, postmaster@cspandownloads.com, postmaster@cspaneducation.com, postmaster@cspanelectionguide.com, postmaster@cspanfaq.com, postmaster@cspanguide.com, postmaster@cspanid.com, postmaster@cspanjobpostings.com, postmaster@cspanmodel.com, postmaster@cspanmovies.com, postmaster@cspannetwork.com, postmaster@cspanpics.com, postmaster@cspanplan.com, postmaster@cspanpodcasts.com, postmaster@cspanpolitics.com, postmaster@cspanpoll.com, postmaster@cspanprimarycoverage.com, postmaster@cspanproductid.com, postmaster@cspanprogramming.com, postmaster@cspanratings.com, postmaster@cspanreviews.com, postmaster@cspanschedule.com, postmaster@cspansites.com, postmaster@cspansourcecode.com, postmaster@cspanstudentcam.com, postmaster@cspanvideo.com, postmaster@cspanvideoclips.com, postmaster@cspanvideolibrary.com, postmaster@cspanvideotv.com, postmaster@cspanwebsite.com, postmaster@c-spananalysis.com, postmaster@c-spanaudiobooks.com, postmaster@c-spanaudiomagazines.com, postmaster@c-spanaudionewspapers.com, postmaster@c-spanblogs.com, postmaster@c-spanbooknotes.com, postmaster@c-spanbooks.com, postmaster@c-spanbooktv.com, postmaster@c-spancam.com, postmaster@c-spancoverage.com, postmaster@c-spandownloads.com, postmaster@c-spaneducation.com, postmaster@c-spanelectionguide.com, postmaster@c-spanfaq.com, postmaster@c-spanguide.com, postmaster@c-spanid.com, postmaster@c-spanjobpostings.com, postmaster@c-spanjunkie.com, postmaster@c-spanmodel.com, postmaster@c-spanmovies.com, postmaster@c-spannetwork.com, postmaster@c-spanonline.com, postmaster@c-spanpics.com, postmaster@c-spanplan.com, postmaster@c-spanpolitics.com, postmaster@c-spanpoll.com, postmaster@c-spanprimarycoverage.com, postmaster@c-spanproductid.com, postmaster@c-spanprogramming.com, postmaster@c-spanratings.com, postmaster@c-spanreviews.com, postmaster@c-spanschedule.com, postmaster@c-spansites.com, postmaster@c-spansourcecode.com, postmaster@c-spanstudentcam.com, postmaster@c-spanvideoclips.com, postmaster@c-spanvideolibrary.com, postmaster@c-spanvideotv.com, postmaster@c-spanwebsite.com, postmaster@c-span911.com, postmaster@reportc-span.com, postmaster@reportcspan.com, postmaster@reviewc-span.com, postmaster@reviewcspan.com, postmaster@viewc-span.com, postmaster@viewcspan.com, postmaster@watchc-span.com and postmaster@watchcspan.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 30, 2008, Respondent requested that his previous e-mail be considered as his response.
An Additional Submission was received from Complainant on January 2,
2009, which was subsequent to the deadline for filing such submissions. The National Arbitration Forum did not
consider this Additional Submission to be timely under the National Arbitration
Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7.
An Additional Submission was received from Respondent on January 6,
2009, which was determined to be timely and complete under the National
Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7.
All submissions were considered.
On December 30, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The National Cable Satellite
Corporation (“NCSC”) is a District of Columbia non-profit corporation exempt
from federal income taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986. NCSC owns and operates
C-SPAN, C-SPAN 2 and C-SPAN 3, well-known producers of public affairs
television distributed by cable television, satellite and the Internet
throughout the
NCSC has used C-SPAN, a famous mark, since 1979. It has used the marks C-SPAN 2, C-SPAN 3, and BOOKNOTES since 1986, 1995, and 1999, respectively. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has registered all four marks.
NCSC’s marks are recognized worldwide and are closely associated with unedited, balanced, impartial and non-partisan public affairs programming.
NCSC registered the domain name C-SPAN.ORG in October 1993 with Network Solutions and has used it since then. It registered the domain name C-SPAN2.COM in January 2000. NCSC has also been awarded the domain names CSPAN.NET and CSPAN2.ORG, C-SPAN2.ORG and CSPAN2.COM.
The Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to the NCSC trademarks because they attempt to add non-distinctive generic terms to NCSC’s trademarks. A non-distinctive addition of a generic term to a trademark does not sufficiently differentiate the domain name at issue from the Complainant’s trademarks. All disputed domain names are permutations of NCSC’s C-SPAN, C-SPAN 2, and C-SPAN 3 trademarks. Some are nearly identical to the NCSC’s marks. Others consist of the addition of words such as “book”, “video”, “TV”, or “watch” to the NCSC trademarks. In one case, a single domain name is a combination of both C-SPAN trademarks, and the BOOKNOTES trademark. Furthermore, these changes all clearly refer back to the original C-SPAN, C-SPAN 2 and C-SPAN 3 trademarks. Any reasonable reader will immediately think of the C-SPAN brand when they see any of the disputed domain names.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in these domain names. The Respondent is using these domain names as a “link farm” displaying generic advertising. These links point to any number of companies, including competitors of NCSC. Respondent hides behind a “privacy service.” All these actions show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in these domain names.
The Respondent has registered the domain names in bad faith, and then proceeded to use them in bad faith. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names with a permutation of C-SPAN on September 12th, 2008. Respondent surely knows the fame of the C-SPAN brand and is trying to piggy-back on NCSC’s success. Respondent is using the disputed C-SPAN-related domain names to disrupt the services of NCSC by misdirecting viewers and giving them advertising instead of the non-profit and noncommercial news services they were seeking. In small half-tone print at the bottom of the Respondent’s advertizing website, is a link that states “make an offer”. This is an obvious effort to sell the disputed domain names. The only party that could have a legitimate interest in purchasing the C-SPAN related domain names is NCSC.
The domain names appear to be registered and acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations to the owner of the trademark, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs related to the domain name. C-SPAN is such a unique well-known trademark that the very use by another company must constitute bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent does not know the fame of the C-SPAN brand.
Respondent is the Managing Editor and Publisher of Sky and Space Magazine which he founded 21 years ago.
Respondent also previously operated a retail outlet.
Respondent also operates a domaining business under the name of “New Media Nexus.” Over time, he has acquired about 4,000 domain names. Those names have been acquired along specific category lines or portfolios.
Respondent plans to establish a new marketing sales network with a name that contains such words as space, astronomy and network.
The name “Cyber Space Astro Network” was conceived with the result that the term CSPAN was created.
Respondent did a trademark check on CSPAN and found this had been a trademark that was abandoned in 2002. He also determined there were other domain names that used CSPAN that were used by different persons or entities other than NCSC.
Each of the names has a separate park citing the plans to ultimately have a separate web site for each name. All of Respondent’s parked names have a “for sale” statement regardless of whether he intends to sell. Respondent does not hide behind a privacy service. He pays a fee, to ensure he does not get spammed or get time wasters.
Respondent did not register the domain names with the intent to sell to NCSC, to disrupt its business or to prevent it from registering its trademark or to in anyway confuse consumers.
C. Additional Submissions
Claimant
Respondent claims that the disputed domain names are not confusingly similar to the NCSC trademarks because he used a non-hyphenated version of the C-SPAN trademarks and because he researched the term “CSPAN” before use. Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to the NCSC trademarks not only because they attempted to add non-distinctive generic terms to MCSC’s trademarks, but because Respondent attempts to differentiate between the disputed domain names and the C-SPAN trademark by using nothing more than a hyphen. All of the disputed domain names are permutation of NCSC’s C-SPAN, C-SPAN 2, and C-SPAN 3 trademarks. It is hard to imagine a more non-distinctive term than the lack of a mere hyphen.
Respondent claims that he did not know of the existence of the NCSC trademark with the hyphenated C-SPAN. This is simply not credible. He also claims that he researched the ownership of all C-SPAN related domain names, and discovered the NCSC owned domain names. Therefore, he must have known that the hyphenated C-SPAN trademark existed and simple choose not to further research their ownership.
Respondent is in the business of selling domain names and has said as much in his email. This proves that he has registered the domain names in bad faith, and then proceeded to use them in bad faith.
Respondent
Respondent found no current TM for “CSPAN” and while registering those names he decided to also register some “C-SPAN” names as a form of protection in case other people registered the same names but with a hyphen. It is common practice when registering domain names to register some other names as a form of protection.
Respondent has added very specific, distinctive words to reinforce the acronym “Cyber SPace Astro Network” i.e. CSPAN as used in our astronomy/space publishing and internet business that Respondent founded 21 years ago.
In the use Respondent will be making for “CSPAN” the generic term is very distinctive and pertinent to the business.
Respondent’s actions displays its right and legitimate interest in the names although Respondent concludes that if it had known of the TM for the hyphenated version of the “C-Span” name, it would have not has proceeded to register those hyphenated names.
With delays caused to marketing plans, Respondent decided to park all of its names pending later development of new web sites.
The fact Respondent sells some domain names does not prove it has registered the domain names in bad faith.
Some names Respondent sells, but the majority of the names are in order to develop into web sites for a variety of business activities to be developed.
FINDINGS
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel
finds for Complainant.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(2) the 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 asserts its rights in
the C-SPAN (Reg. No. 2,081,620 issued
Complainant argues that the <c-span-id.com>, <cspan-id.com>, <cspan-3.com>, <cspananalysis.com>, <cspanaudiobooks.com>, <cspanaudiomagazines.com>, <cspanaudionewspapers.com>, <cspanblogs.com>, <cspanbooks.com>, <cspancam.com>, <cspancoverage.com>, <cspandownloads.com>, <cspaneducation.com>, <cspanelectionguide.com>, <cspanfaq.com>, <cspanguide.com>, <cspanid.com>, <cspanjobpostings.com>, <cspanmodel.com>, <cspanmovies.com>, <cspannetwork.com>, <cspanpics.com>, <cspanplan.com>, <cspanpodcasts.com>, <cspanpolitics.com>, <cspanpoll.com>, <cspanprimarycoverage.com>, <cspanproductid.com>, <cspanprogramming.com>, <cspanratings.com>, <cspanreviews.com>, <cspanschedule.com>, <cspansites.com>, <cspansourcecode.com>, <cspanstudentcam.com>, <cspanvideo.com>, <cspanvideoclips.com>, <cspanvideolibrary.com>, <cspanvideotv.com>, <cspanwebsite.com>, <c-spananalysis.com>, <c-spanaudiobooks.com>, <c-spanaudiomagazines.com>, <c-spanaudionewspapers.com>, <c-spanblogs.com>, <c-spanbooks.com>, <c-spanbooktv.com>, <c-spancam.com>, <c-spancoverage.com>, <c-spandownloads.com>, <c-spaneducation.com>, <c-spanelectionguide.com>, <c-spanfaq.com>, <c-spanguide.com>, <c-spanid.com>, <c-spanjobpostings.com>, <c-spanjunkie.com>, <c-spanmodel.com>, <c-spanmovies.com>, <c-spannetwork.com>, <c-spanonline.com>, <c-spanpics.com>, <c-spanplan.com>, <c-spanpolitics.com>, <c-spanpoll.com>, <c-spanprimarycoverage.com>, <c-spanproductid.com>, <c-spanprogramming.com>, <c-spanratings.com>, <c-spanreviews.com>, <c-spanschedule.com>, <c-spansites.com>, <c-spansourcecode.com>, <c-spanstudentcam.com>, <c-spanvideoclips.com>, <c-spanvideolibrary.com>, <c-spanvideotv.com>, <c-spanwebsite.com>, <c-span911.com>, <reportc-span.com>, <reportcspan.com>, <reviewc-span.com>, <reviewcspan.com>, <viewc-span.com>, <viewcspan.com>, <watchc-span.com> and <watchcspan.com> domain names include Complainant’s C-SPAN mark and add a generic word or phrase and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD, being necessary for all domain names, is irrelevant to an analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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.”). Moreover, the Panel finds that the addition of a generic or descriptive word to a famous mark is insufficient to dispel the confusing similarity that results from using the mark in the disputed domain name. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Domain Depot, FA 96854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2001) (finding the <broadcomonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s BROADCOM mark). The Panel notes that the <cspan-id.com>, <cspananalysis.com>, <cspanaudiobooks.com>, <cspanaudiomagazines.com>, <cspanaudionewspapers.com>, <cspanblogs.com>, <cspanbooks.com>, <cspancam.com>, <cspancoverage.com>, <cspandownloads.com>, <cspaneducation.com>, <cspanelectionguide.com>, <cspanfaq.com>, <cspanguide.com>, <cspanid.com>, <cspanjobpostings.com>, <cspanmodel.com>, <cspanmovies.com>, <cspannetwork.com>, <cspanpics.com>, <cspanplan.com>, <cspanpodcasts.com>, <cspanpolitics.com>, <cspanpoll.com>, <cspanprimarycoverage.com>, <cspanproductid.com>, <cspanprogramming.com>, <cspanratings.com>, <cspanreviews.com>, <cspanschedule.com>, <cspansites.com>, <cspansourcecode.com>, <cspanstudentcam.com>, <cspanvideo.com>, <cspanvideoclips.com>, <cspanvideolibrary.com>, <cspanvideotv.com>, <cspanwebsite.com>, <reportcspan.com>, <reviewcspan.com>, <viewcspan.com>, and <watchcspan.com> domain names omit the hyphen from Complainant’s C-SPAN mark. Thus, the Panel finds that the omission of the hyphen in these 44 domain names is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s C-SPAN mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nat’l Cable Satellite Corp. v. Black Sun Surf Co., FA 94738 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2000) (holding that the domain name <cspan.net>, which omitted the hyphen from the trademark spelling, C-SPAN, is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark); see also Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. v. Club Car Executive Transp., D2000-0611 (WIPO Sept. 18, 2000) (finding that removing a hyphen in the domain names is not sufficient to differentiate the domain names from the mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that these disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s C-SPAN mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant asserts that the <c-span-2.com> domain name consists of Complainant’s C-SPAN
2 mark in its entirety, adding a hyphen between “C-SPAN” and “2, ” and the gTLD “.com.” As discussed above, the Panel finds that the
addition of a gTLD is irrelevant to an analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Isleworth Land Co., supra. Moreover, the Panel finds that the addition
of a hyphen, where none exists in the mark, is insufficient to overcome the
confusing similarity that results from using Complainant’s mark in its
entirety. See Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541
(Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant also argues that the <c-span-3.com> and <cspan-3.com>
domain names consist of Complainant’s C-SPAN 3 mark, adding the gTLD “.com,”
adding a hyphen between “C-SPAN” and “3” in both domain names, and omitting a
hyphen in the latter domain name. The
Panel finds that adding a hyphen to Complainant’s mark is insufficient to
disrupt the confusing similarity that results from using the mark. See
Sports Auth. Mich. Inc., supra. Moreover, the Panel finds that the omission of the hyphen and the addition of
a gTLD are insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from
Complainant’s C-SPAN 3 mark. See Nat’l Cable Satellite Corp., supra.; see also Isleworth Land Co., supra. The Panel therefore finds that the <c-span-3.com>
and <cspan-3.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s C-SPAN 3 mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Finally, Complainant contends that
the <cspanbooknotes.com>
and <c-spanbooknotes.com> domain names incorporate Complainant’s
C-SPAN and BOOKNOTES marks, omitting the hyphen in the first domain name and
adding the gTLD “.com” to both domain names.
The Panel finds that the omission of a hyphen and the addition of a gTLD
do not dispel any confusing similarity that results from using Complainant’s
marks. See Nat’l Cable Satellite Corp., supra.; see also Isleworth
Land Co., supra. Second, the Panel finds that using two of
Complainant’s marks results in confusing similarity under Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Nintendo of Am. Inc. v. Pokemon, D2000-1230 (WIPO
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant must first make a prima
facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to
Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie
case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to
show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA
780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima
facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in
the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the
burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate
interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent
has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use the
C-SPAN, C-SPAN 2, C-SPAN 3 or BOOKNOTES marks, and that the WHOIS information
identifies Respondent as “New Media Nexus c/o Lyle, Rumble.” The Panel finds that Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720
(Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant
asserts in its Complaint and Additional Submission that Respondent is using the
disputed domain names to link to third-party
websites. The Panel finds that
Respondent’s use of domain names that are allegedly confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks redirects Internet users
interested in Complainant’s news and information services to websites that
offer unrelated services. The Panel finds
that this is not a use in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services pursuant to 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
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s resolving websites contain the following invitation: “make an offer.” Complainant also asserts in its Additional Submission that Respondent admits to this allegation. Complainant asserts that Respondent therefore has sought to sell the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. Hyun-Jun Shin, FA 154098 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (holding that under the circumstances, the respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose of its rights in the disputed domain name suggested that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).
Complainant has
proven this element.
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s resolving websites contain at the
bottom the following invitation: “make an offer.” Complainant also asserts in its Additional
Submission that Respondent admits to this allegation. The Panel finds that Respondent primarily
intended to sell the disputed domain names for an amount in excess of
registration costs, therefore Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and
use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's
general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes
that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered
domain names for sale).
Complainant argues that Respondent
registered 91 domain names on the same day that are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks. The Panel infers
that Respondent registered these domain names to prevent Complainant from
reflecting its marks in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds this is evidence of a pattern
of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See
Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant argues that Respondent receives click-through fees for
diverting Internet users to third-party websites, and that Internet users
accessing Respondent’s disputed domain names may become confused as to
Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting websites. The Panel finds that Respondent is attempting
to profit via click-through fees from this confusion. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent
engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex
Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant argues in its
Additional Submission that Respondent could not have been unaware of
Complainant and its rights in its marks if Respondent had completed a trademark
or Internet search. The Panel finds that
Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s marks and that such evidences
Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith,
279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Where an alleged
infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an
intent to confuse."); see also Ty Inc. v. Parvin, D2000-0688 (WIPO Nov. 9, 2000) (finding that the
respondent’s registration and use of an identical and/or confusingly similar
domain name was in bad faith where the complainant’s BEANIE BABIES mark was
famous and the respondent should have been aware of it).
The Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by utilizing a proxy service to conceal its true identity. See Spin Master Ltd. v DCSTEAM INC., FA 1210515 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 5, 2008) (“the Respondent had originally registered <moonsandkits.com> under the name ‘Domains By Proxy, Inc.,’ a company which provides the services of concealing registrant information. The Respondent had clearly gone to great lengths to hide its identity. The Panel therefore finds that this concealment of the Respondent’s true identity was indicative of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy 4(a)(ii).”).
Complainant has proven this
element.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <c-span-id.com>, <c-span-2.com>, <c-span-3.com>, <cspan-id.com>, <cspan-3.com>, <cspananalysis.com>, <cspanaudiobooks.com>, <cspanaudiomagazines.com>, <cspanaudionewspapers.com>, <cspanblogs.com>, <cspanbooknotes.com>, <cspanbooks.com>, <cspancam.com>, <cspancoverage.com>, <cspandownloads.com>, <cspaneducation.com>, <cspanelectionguide.com>, <cspanfaq.com>, <cspanguide.com>, <cspanid.com>, <cspanjobpostings.com>, <cspanmodel.com>, <cspanmovies.com>, <cspannetwork.com>, <cspanpics.com>, <cspanplan.com>, <cspanpodcasts.com>, <cspanpolitics.com>, <cspanpoll.com>, <cspanprimarycoverage.com>, <cspanproductid.com>, <cspanprogramming.com>, <cspanratings.com>, <cspanreviews.com>, <cspanschedule.com>, <cspansites.com>, <cspansourcecode.com>, <cspanstudentcam.com>, <cspanvideo.com>, <cspanvideoclips.com>, <cspanvideolibrary.com>, <cspanvideotv.com>, <cspanwebsite.com>, <c-spananalysis.com>, <c-spanaudiobooks.com>, <c-spanaudiomagazines.com>, <c-spanaudionewspapers.com>, <c-spanblogs.com>, <c-spanbooknotes.com>, <c-spanbooks.com>, <c-spanbooktv.com>, <c-spancam.com>, <c-spancoverage.com>, <c-spandownloads.com>, <c-spaneducation.com>, <c-spanelectionguide.com>, <c-spanfaq.com>, <c-spanguide.com>, <c-spanid.com>, <c-spanjobpostings.com>, <c-spanjunkie.com>, <c-spanmodel.com>, <c-spanmovies.com>, <c-spannetwork.com>, <c-spanonline.com>, <c-spanpics.com>, <c-spanplan.com>, <c-spanpolitics.com>, <c-spanpoll.com>, <c-spanprimarycoverage.com>, <c-spanproductid.com>, <c-spanprogramming.com>, <c-spanratings.com>, <c-spanreviews.com>, <c-spanschedule.com>, <c-spansites.com>, <c-spansourcecode.com>, <c-spanstudentcam.com>, <c-spanvideoclips.com>, <c-spanvideolibrary.com>, <c-spanvideotv.com>, <c-spanwebsite.com>, <c-span911.com>, <reportc-span.com>, <reportcspan.com>, <reviewc-span.com>, <reviewcspan.com>, <viewc-span.com>, <viewcspan.com>, <watchc-span.com> and <watchcspan.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 26, 2009
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum