Megger Limited v. vantageousventures
Claim Number: FA0902001248521
Complainant is Megger
Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Cara M. Kearney, of Pepper Hamilton LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <meggermeters.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
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 February 19, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 20, 2009.
On February 20, 2009, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <meggermeters.com> domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.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 March 2, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 23, 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@meggermeters.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 27, 2009, 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.
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 <meggermeters.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MEGGER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <meggermeters.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <meggermeters.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Megger Limited, is a leader in the research, development, and production of electrical test equipment and measuring instruments for the electrical power application industry. Complainant has operated since 1903, and has registered its MEGGER mark numerous times with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (i.e. Reg. No. 64,980 issued September 3, 1907) and other governmental trademark authorities worldwide.
Respondent registered the <meggermeters.com> domain name on May 22, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that, through its various iterations, has listed third-party links for Complainant’s competitors, falsely identified itself as originating from Complainant, and contained belittling comments regarding Complainant’s mark.
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 long-standing registration of the MEGGER mark with the USPTO and other governmental trademark authorities worldwide demonstrates Complainant’s rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also 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’)”).
The disputed <meggermeters.com> domain name contains Complainant’s MEGGER mark, the descriptive term “meters,” and the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel aligns itself with previous precedent that finds the addition of a gTLD irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Moreover, the addition of a word that describes a complainant’s business tends to heighten the resulting confusing similarity. This is the case here, as the generic word “meters” describes Complainant’s electrical equipment products. 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 Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant must establish a prima facie case to support these assertions, and the Panel finds Complainant has done so in these proceedings. Once Complainant has produced a sufficient prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to establish it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent failed to submit a response to these proceedings, thus the Panel may infer Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See 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.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
There is no evidence in the record by which the Panel may
conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information lists the registrant as
“vantageousventures,” and Complainant has asserted that Respondent lacks the
license or authorization to use Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also Wells
Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the
WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that
Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name
‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
The disputed domain name resolves
to a website that has, and maintains, links for Complainant’s third-party
competitors. Moreover, this website has
set forth information claiming to be originating from Complainant. The Panel finds that such imitation
constituted an attempt to pass Respondent off as Complainant for some
commercial reason, presumably to further the pay-per-click links to these
competitors. In sum, the Panel finds
that Respondent has not, at any point, 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 Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27,
2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly
similar domain name was not 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 Mortgage Research Center LLC v.
Miranda, FA 993017 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also
attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial
gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the
<mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for 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).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent intentionally sought to
disrupt Complainant’s business by continuously posting links to Complainant’s
direct competitors. This constitutes bad
faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
Complainant contends, and the Panel agrees, that Respondent
sought to commercially gain from the provision of these third-party commercial
links to Complainant’s competitors by creating a likelihood of confusion as to
the source, endorsement, affiliation, or sponsorship of the disputed domain
name and resolving website. That
Respondent sought to pass itself off as Complainant by placing language on the
resolving website purporting the website to be originating from Complainant
supports this conclusion. Therefore, the
Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered and
used a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to attract
users to a website sponsored by the respondent); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312
(Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in
question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus
creating a likelihood of confusion strictly 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 <meggermeters.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 10, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum