Green Flag Limited v. herethereandeverywhere, inc
Claim Number: FA0903001252796
Complainant is Green Flag Limited (“Complainant”), represented by James
A. Thomas of Troutman Sanders LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <greenflagcarhire.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically March 17, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint March 18, 2009.
On March 17, 2009, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <greenflagcarhire.com> domain name is registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.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 20, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 9, 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@greenflagcarhire.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 16, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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. The domain name that Respondent registered, <greenflagcarhire.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GREEN FLAG mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <greenflagcarhire.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <greenflagcarhire.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Green Flag Limited, was founded in 1971 as a
recovery service for stranded motorists, and was renamed “Green Flag” in 1994
for its offering of personal insurance coverage. Complainant provides insurance to some five
million customers across
Respondent registered the <greenflagcarhire.com> domain name June 27, 2006. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website purporting to offer car rental services.
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."
Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 demonstrated rights in the
GREEN FLAG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through
registration of the mark with the UKIPO and the OHIM. See Thermo Electron Corp. v.
Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (holding that
the complainants established rights in marks because the marks were registered
with a trademark authority); see also DatingDirect.com
Limited v. Turner, FA 349013 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 16, 2004) (finding that
the panel recognizes the distinctive nature of the complainant’s
DATINGDIRECT.COM mark through registration with the United Kingdom Patent
Office).
Respondent’s disputed <greenflagcarhire.com> domain name differs from Complainant’s GREEN FLAG mark in the following manners: (1) the generic top-level domain “.com” has been added; and (2) the generic terms “car hire” have been added. The Panel notes that addition of a top-level domain name is not material to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Moreover, addition of the words “car hire” fail to thwart a finding of confusing similarity since the mark remains the dominant element. See, e.g., Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of
ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has asserted that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant must successfully assert a sufficient prima facie case supporting its allegations before Respondent receives the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests. The Panel finds that Complainant met its burden, and therefore Respondent must demonstrate that it does have rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). 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 Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
No evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, Complainant contends that Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, and that Respondent is not authorized to register or use the disputed domain name or the GREEN FLAG mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also 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).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that
purports to offer commercial car rental services. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent
has not engaged in 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 Summit
Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA
758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s
LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website
for commercial gain does not constitute either 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 also Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS
into Tech, FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec.
6, 2003) (“Diverting customers, who are looking for products relating to the
famous SEIKO mark, to a website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide
offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of
ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
It is very likely that Internet users seeking Complainant’s
site will reach the disputed domain name and end up unknowingly at Respondent’s
confusingly similar website. Both Complainant and Respondent operate in the
same commercial area of car rental services. Respondent has created a likelihood of
confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with, and endorsement of, the
disputed domain name and corresponding website.
The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration
and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore,
FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent
registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)
because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract
Internet users to its commercial website).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of
ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <greenflagcarhire.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: April 30, 2009.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum