national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Baylor University v. Carlos Gomez

Claim Number: FA0812001240492

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Baylor University (“Complainant”), represented by Wendy C. Larson, Texas, USA.  Respondent is Carlos Gomez (“Respondent”), Mexico.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <baylorgroup.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 31, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 2, 2009.

 

On December 31, 2008, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <baylorgroup.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 January 5, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 26, 2009 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@baylorgroup.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On January 30, 2009, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <baylorgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BAYLOR mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <baylorgroup.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <baylorgroup.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Baylor University, is a Baptist university in Texas that was founded in 1845.  It registered the BAYLOR mark (Reg. No. 1,465,910) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on November 17, 1987.

 

Respondent registered the <baylorgroup.com> domain name on January 4, 2008.  The disputed domain name is being used to resolve to a website displaying a list of links to third-party sites.  Some of these links purport to link to Complainant’s website, but instead list to Complainant’s competitors.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant’s registration of the BAYLOR mark with the USPTO establishes its rights to the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); see also Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO).

 

The <baylorgroup.com> domain name is composed of Complainant’s BAYLOR mark, the generic word “group,” and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com.”  It is well established that a gTLD is irrelevant to an analysis 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.”).  The addition of the generic work “group” does not dispel the confusing similarity that results from using Complainant’s entire, unaltered BAYLOR mark.  The Panel therefore finds that the <baylorgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BAYLOR mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  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 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 the 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 finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  If the Panel finds that Complainant’s allegations establish such a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does indeed have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to the guidelines in Policy ¶ 4(c).  Since no response was submitted in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that Complainant’s allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <baylorgroup.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  However, the Panel will still examine the record in consideration of the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c).  See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); 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).”). 

 

Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), if Respondent demonstrates it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, then it will have demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in said name.  The Panel finds no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <baylorgroup.com> domain name.  Complainant asserts that Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use the BAYLOR mark, and the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Carlos Gomez.”  Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under 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 Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’  Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).

 

Respondent may also prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by showing it is being used in connection with 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).  The disputed domain name is being used to direct Internet users to a parking website with a list of links to third-party websites.  Using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to direct Internet users to a list of links is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  See eBay Inc. v. Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s entire mark in domain names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate use); see also Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent is using the <baylorgroup.com> domain name to resolve to a website that contains links for third-party websites.  Some of these links directly compete with Complainant.  The Panel finds Respondent is using the <baylorgroup.com> domain name to divert Internet users to Complainant’s competitors.  This is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).

 

The website that resolves from the <baylorgroup.com> domain name displays advertisements and links to sites that are both related and unrelated to Complainant’s BAYLOR mark.  The Panel infers that Respondent receives pay-per-click fees for these links and advertisements.  Since the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, Internet users are likely to become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation or sponsorship of the resolving website.  Respondent is seeking to profit from this confusion by hosting pay-per-click advertising on the resolving website.  The Panel finds this is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See 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.”); see also Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net, D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s registration of an infringing domain name to redirect Internet users to banner advertisements constituted bad faith use of the domain name).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <baylorgroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated:  February 13, 2009

 

 

 

 

National Arbitration Forum