ooVoo LLC v. Uvumi LLC c/o Marshall Stokes
Claim Number: FA0902001247310
Complainant is ooVoo
LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Brett
E. Bachtell, of McDermott Will & Emery LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <oovoome.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 12, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 13, 2009.
On February 12, 2009, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <oovoome.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 February 20, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 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@oovoome.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 19, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <oovoome.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OOVOO mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <oovoome.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <oovoome.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, ooVoo LLC, develops and markets online communication software, and has done so since 2007. Complainant has registered its OOVOO mark with numerous governmental trademark authorities worldwide, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,431,994 issued May 20, 2008; filed November 21, 2006).
Respondent registered the <oovoome.com> domain name on January 24, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that is unrelated to Complainant and contains information on musicians.
In response to Complainant’s offer to buy the disputed domain name for $500, Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name for no less than $5,000.
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.
Through Complainant’s registration of the OOVOO mark with
the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has sufficient rights in the mark
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that date back to the mark’s
filing date with the USPTO. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033
(Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in
the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark
authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and
Trademark office (‘USPTO’)”); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818
(Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s rights in the
KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO “date back to the filing date of the
trademark application and predate [the] respondent’s registration”).
Respondent’s <oovoome.com> domain name contains Complainant’s OOVOO mark along with the generic word “me” and the generic top-level domain “.com.” While the addition of “.com” is generally considered irrelevant, the addition of a generic word, such as “me,” fails to create a meaningful distinction between the instant domain name and the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also NIIT Ltd. v. Parthasarathy Venkatram, D2000-0497 (WIPO Aug. 4, 2000) (finding that the “domain name ‘myniit.com,’ which incorporates the word NIIT as a prominent part thereof, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade name and trademark NIIT”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has
successfully discharged its burden of setting forth a prima facie case supporting its allegations, and that Respondent
now receives the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate
interests. See 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).”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted
that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the
domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete
evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within
the knowledge and control of the respondent”).
The evidence before the Panel generally works against Respondent under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), in that there is scant evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS domain name registration information lists the registrant as “Uvumi LLC c/o Marshall Stokes,” and while the “Uvimi” element may be phonetically similar to the disputed domain name, there is no corroborating evidence to support this argument. More convincingly, there is no license or authority to use Complainant’s mark alleged by Respondent. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Skyline Displays, Inc. v. Hangzhou Skyi Display Equip. Co., FA 187706 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 14, 2003) (“Despite the fact that Respondent lists itself as Hangzhou Skyi Display Equipment Co., Ltd. in its WHOIS contact information, there is no evidence presented to the Panel showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <skyidisplay.com> domain name prior to registering the domain name.”); see also MB Fin. Bank, N.A. v. mbfinancialmortgage.com, FA 405073 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 11, 2005) (“[D]espite being listed in the WHOIS information as ‘mbfinancialmortgage.com,’ Respondent is not commonly known by this domain name nor is [it] authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s MB FINANCIAL mark.”).
The disputed domain name resolves to an unrelated website
regarding musicians. The Panel finds
that the use of Complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar disputed domain
name to divert Internet users to this unrelated website fails to 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 Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect
Internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona
fide use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)); see also The
Respondent has offered to sell the disputed domain name to
Complainant for an amount not only in excess of its registration costs, but
well beyond Complainant’s initial offer.
The Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that a respondent’s willingness to sell a
domain name to the complainant suggests that a respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in that domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029
(Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to
sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided
additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in
the contested domain name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
As mentioned in the foregoing Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
analysis, Respondent countered Complainant’s offer to buy the disputed domain
name with an amount that well-exceeded both the initial offer and the
registration costs. The Panel finds this
sufficient to find that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Neiman Marcus
Group, Inc. v. AchievementTec, Inc., FA
192316 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003)
(finding the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name for $2,000 sufficient
evidence of bad faith registration and use 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).
Respondent’s disputed
domain name resolves to an unrelated website concerning musicians. The Panel infers Respondent seeks to obtain
commercial gain from this use through the likelihood of confusion regarding
Complainant’s endorsement or affiliation with the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that
Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir.
2002) ("While an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding
of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood
of confusion."); see also Drs. Foster
& Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000)
(finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s
site to its own website for commercial gain).
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 <oovoome.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: April 2, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum