national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Joshua Bolin

Claim Number: FA0901001243116

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Gretchen McCord Hoffman, of Wong, Cabello, Lutsch, Rutherford & Brucculeri, L.L.P., Texas, USA.  Respondent is Joshua Bolin (“Respondent”), Georgia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <firemansfundinsurance.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 15, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 16, 2009.

 

On January 19, 2009, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <firemansfundinsurance.info> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 23, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 12, 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@firemansfundinsurance.info by e-mail.

 

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

 

On February 18, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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 <firemansfundinsurance.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FIREMAN’S FUND mark.

 

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

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <firemansfundinsurance.info> domain name in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, operates an insurance company under its FIREMAN’S FUND mark.  Complainant registered its FIREMAN’S FUND mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on June 18, 1974 (Reg. No. 986,653). 

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 1, 2008.  The <firemansfundinsurance.info> domain name resolves to a website offering links to third-party websites operated by 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 has provided evidence of the registration of its FIREMAN’S FUND mark with the USPTO, which the Panel finds establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See 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); see also Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (finding trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Complainant contends Respondent’s <firemansfundinsurance.info> domain name is confusingly similar to its FIREMAN’S FUND mark.  The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark with the following alterations: (1) the omission of an apostrophe; (2) the addition of the descriptive term “insurance;” and (3) the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.info.”  The Panel finds these alterations do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark, and thus finds the <firemansfundinsurance.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FIREMAN’S FUND mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Kausar, FA 140598 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 11, 2003) (“The lack of an apostrophe in the domain name is not a distinguishing difference because punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and a mark.”); see also Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Easynet Ltd, FA 944330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (“The additions of generic words with an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business and a gTLD renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant has alleged Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Complainant must present a prima facie case to support these allegations before the burden shifts to Respondent to prove otherwise.  The Panel finds Complainant has presented an adequate prima facie case to support its allegations and Respondent has failed to respond to these proceedings.  Therefore, the Panel may conclude Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The Panel, however, will examine the record and determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).  See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”).

 

Complainant alleges Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Complainant maintains it has never authorized Respondent to use its FIREMAN’S FUND mark in any manner.  The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Joshua Bolin.”  Based on this information, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <firemansfundinsurance.info> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent’s <firemansfundinsurance.info> domain name resolves to a website offering links to the websites of Complainant’s competitors.  The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not indicative of 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 Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products.  The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute 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 also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant contends Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business by directing Internet users to competing websites.  The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the <firemansfundinsurance.info> domain name does constitute disruption, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).

 

Respondent presumably receives compensation in the form of click-through fees for its use of the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds this is an attempt by Respondent to capitalize on the goodwill Complainant has established in its FIREMAN’S FUND mark, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See 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); see also Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees.   Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).

 

The Panel find Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) has been satisfied.

 

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 <firemansfundinsurance.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)

 

Dated:  March 3, 2009

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum