Diners Club International Ltd. v. GDCash LLC
Claim Number: FA0907001272949
PARTIES
Complainant is Diners Club International Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <albuquerquedinersclub.com>,
<atlantadinersclub.com>, <bayareadinersclub.com>, <beavertondinersclub.com>, <birminghamdinersclub.com>, <bostondinersclub.com>, <charlottedinersclub.com>, <chicagodinersclub.com>, <citydinersclub.com>, <dcdinersclub.com>, <denverdinersclub.com>, <detroitdinersclub.com>, <indianapolisdinersclub.com>, <jacksonvilledinersclub.com>, <kansascitydinersclub.com>, <ladinersclub.com>, <lasvegasdinersclub.com>, <louisvilledinersclub.com>, <memphisdinersclub.com>, <miamidinersclub.com>, <milwaukeedinersclub.com>, <minneapolisdinersclub.com>, <nashvilledinersclub.com>, <nycdinersclub.com>, <orlandodinersclub.com>, <phillydinersclub.com>, <phoenixdinersclub.com>, <sandiegodinersclub.com>, <sanfranciscodinersclub.com>, <sanjosedinersclub.com>, <seattledinersclub.com>, <stlouisdinersclub.com>, <tucsondinersclub.com>, <dallasdinersclub.com>, <houstondinersclub.com>, and <sanantoniodinersclub.com>,
registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
Dr. Reinhard Schanda as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 8, 2009; the National
Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 9, 2009.
On July 9, 2009, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <albuquerquedinersclub.com>,
<atlantadinersclub.com>, <bayareadinersclub.com>, <beavertondinersclub.com>, <birminghamdinersclub.com>, <bostondinersclub.com>, <charlottedinersclub.com>, <chicagodinersclub.com>, <citydinersclub.com>, <dcdinersclub.com>, <denverdinersclub.com>, <detroitdinersclub.com>, <indianapolisdinersclub.com>, <jacksonvilledinersclub.com>, <kansascitydinersclub.com>, <ladinersclub.com>, <lasvegasdinersclub.com>, <louisvilledinersclub.com>, <memphisdinersclub.com>, <miamidinersclub.com>, <milwaukeedinersclub.com>, <minneapolisdinersclub.com>, <nashvilledinersclub.com>, <nycdinersclub.com>, <orlandodinersclub.com>, <phillydinersclub.com>, <phoenixdinersclub.com>, <sandiegodinersclub.com>, <sanfranciscodinersclub.com>, <sanjosedinersclub.com>, <seattledinersclub.com>, <stlouisdinersclub.com>, <tucsondinersclub.com>, <dallasdinersclub.com>, <houstondinersclub.com>, and <sanantoniodinersclub.com> domain
names are registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that the 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 July 16, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of August 5, 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@albuquerquedinersclub.com,
postmaster@atlantadinersclub.com, postmaster@bayareadinersclub.com,
postmaster@beavertondinersclub.com, postmaster@birminghamdinersclub.com,
postmaster@bostondinersclub.com, postmaster@charlottedinersclub.com,
postmaster@chicagodinersclub.com, postmaster@citydinersclub.com,
postmaster@dcdinersclub.com, postmaster@denverdinersclub.com,
postmaster@detroitdinersclub.com, postmaster@indianapolisdinersclub.com,
postmaster@jacksonvilledinersclub.com, postmaster@kansascitydinersclub.com,
postmaster@ladinersclub.com, postmaster@lasvegasdinersclub.com,
postmaster@louisvilledinersclub.com, postmaster@memphisdinersclub.com,
postmaster@miamidinersclub.com, postmaster@milwaukeedinersclub.com,
postmaster@minneapolisdinersclub.com, postmaster@nashvilledinersclub.com,
postmaster@nycdinersclub.com, postmaster@orlandodinersclub.com,
postmaster@phillydinersclub.com, postmaster@phoenixdinersclub.com,
postmaster@sandiegodinersclub.com, postmaster@sanfranciscodinersclub.com,
postmaster@sanjosedinersclub.com, postmaster@seattledinersclub.com,
postmaster@stlouisdinersclub.com, postmaster@tucsondinersclub.com,
postmaster@dallasdinersclub.com, postmaster@houstondinersclub.com, and
postmaster@sanantoniodinersclub.comby e-mail.
A Response was received on August 6, 2009. However because this Response was received
not in electronic copy by the Response deadline the National Arbitration Forum
does not consider this Response to be in compliance with ICANN Rule 5.
Complainant submitted an Additional Submission to the National
Arbitration Forum on August 10, 2009, which was deemed timely in accordance
with the National Arbitration Forum‘s Supplemental Rule 7.
Respondent submitted an Additional Submission to the National
Arbitration Forum on August 17, 2009, which was deemed timely in accordance
with the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7.
On August 10, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Dr. Reinhard Schanda as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Complainant is a leading provider of financial services to individuals,
small businesses, and large corporations through many channels of trade,
including but not limited to, credit card services. The credit cards issued by
Complainant are accepted in over 200 countries and at over 7.6 million
locations around the world.
The credit cards bearing Complainant’s marks are accepted at 800,000
ATMs and are issued in 64 local currencies. Complainant has over 8 million
individual cardholders. Over half of the Fortune 500 companies hold corporate
cards issued by Complainant. The principal customers of Complainant include,
frequent business travelers, corporations, service establishments, travel
managers, state and local governments, travel agents, colleges and
universities, and affluent individuals. Complainant’s primary website is www.dinersclub.com and the primary website
of Complainant’s
Complainant holds numerous
The DINERS
CLUB FAMILY represents to the worldwide consuming public the goods and services
offered by Complainant and its licensees. Diners Club has made extensive use of
the DINERS CLUB FAMILY by providing the Complainant’s Core Service and an
affinity marketing program throughout the
Due to the extensive use and registration of the DINERS CLUB FAMILY,
the marks in the DINERS CLUB FAMILY have become famous under the laws of the
Many decades after use of the DINERS CLUB FAMILY throughout the
Complainant contends that the Offending Domains are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s marks because they fully incorporate Complainant’s DINERS and
DINERS CLUB marks since the only difference between such marks and the domain
names are the addition of an additional, descriptive term, such as the
geographically description terms (atlanta, bay area, beaverton, etc.).
Furthermore, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the
Offending Domains. Respondent has never been commonly known by any of
Complainant’s DINERS, DINERS CLUB or DINERS CLUB INTERNATIONAL marks nor any
variations thereof, and has never used any trademark or service mark similar to
the Offending Domains by which it may have come to be known, other than the
infringing use noted herein.
Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business
under the Offending Domains, and is not making a protected non-commercial of
fair use of the Offending Domains. As noted above, Respondent is not using the
Offending Domains at all. Such lack of use is certainly not a
bona fide offerings of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use.
As noted above, Respondent’s Offending Domains are confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s marks. In addition, Respondent was undoubtedly aware of
the DINERS CLUB FAMILY prior to the registration of the Offending Domains,
given the considerable registration and/or use, as set forth in detail above.
Because Respondent had notice of the Complainant’s trademark rights when
registering domain names nearly identical and/or confusingly similar to those
marks, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Offending
Domains.
Finally, Complainant has not granted Respondent any license, permission,
or authorization by which it could own or use any domain name registration which are confusingly similar to any of
Complainant’s marks.
According to Complainant Respondent registered and used the Offending
Domain names in bad faith. At the time of registration of each of the Offending
Domains, Respondent had at least constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s
marks because of Complainant’s registration of its marks with the USPTO.
Even if Respondent were able to claim lack of knowledge, bad faith can
exist, when a search of the trademark registry would reveal the registration
rights of a Complainant. Had Respondent searched the USPTO, he would have seen
Complainant’s marks.
The Offending Domains have been put to use to intentionally attract,
for commercial gain, Internet users to o-line locations, by creating a
likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location
or of a product or service on Respondent’s web site or location. Specifically,
Respondent us using the domain names to promote competing financial services.
This behavior by Respondent evidences one of the four explicit examples of
bad faith set forth in the Policy.
B.
Respondent
Respondent contends that it runs a legitimate private dining club
business in Austin Texas. Established July 22, 2008, the Austin Diners Club
(ADC) is a private dining club existing of 138 members who gather several times
a month to dine at some of
Of all domain names listed in this complaint, the one that is not
included as contentious is the original site: <austindinersclub.com>.
Austindinerclub.com clearly shows that the website is a private food club and
not apart of the credit card industry. As with other private
diners clubs found on the Internet: Aloha Diners Club, The Diners’ Club and LOA
Diners Club.
Respondent did not purchase the 36 websites in bad faith or to leverage
the Diners Club International’s name to promote competing credit cards for
financial gain as asserted. Rather they were purchased to expand the diners
club to other cities. Respondent’s purchased the domains through their hosting
company, Shaarp Hosting, and Shaarp Hosting on their own accord parked the
sites not using the traditional default pages of coming soon, but created the
current pages with sponsor links with out the permission and knowledge of
Respondent. Respondent has not profited from the sponsor links nor does
Respondent have control over the sponsor links. Respondent has been not able
invoke Shaarp Hosting Company to remove the sponsored links since the hosting
company has refused to cooperate in a timely manner and Wild West Domains has
locked the sites down where as blocking Respondent’s ability to resolve this
amicably in a timely manner.
Further the sponsor links as shown in the Complainant’s complaint,
under the sponsor links section show real estate, hotels, local guides, real
estate, car rental, mortgage, travel and e-commerce links among a few credit
cards links. This is further proof the pages were not designed to promote
competing credit services or any other offenses as described in ICANN Rule
3(b)(ix)(i); ICANN Policy 4(a)(i).
The hosting company who set up the parked pages, from what we can
ascertain, since thy are uncooperative at this moment did not set the pages up
correctly and placed sponsored links not gearing toward any gain against Diners
Club International, but from Respondent without Respondent’s permission and
knowledge.
According to Respondent the extent of the trademark is only in
financial services/credit card services and although their participating
merchants and partners include many retael establishments, the trademark law
does not prohibit use of the word “DINERS” and/or “DINERS CLUB” in other
industries outside of the credit card/financial market. Since the word “DINERS”
and/or “DINERS CLUB” are generic words often used in the English language they
can be used as popular generic names by the general public as long as the
products are distinguished.
Complainant’s trademarks only extend themselves to the credit card
services. The words “Diners” and/or “Diners Club” are used generically by the
public and are not infringing on any existing trademark. In addition, the claim
that the public is becoming confused would be substantiated it there was actual
traffic going to these sites. These sites are not advertised and are not
generating an abundance of traffic. As mentioned on page one of this document,
Aloha Diners Club uses these word in their domain and has not had any issues of
confusion. Austindinersclub.com as well has not had any issue with confusion.
Respondent is willing to move ahead and correct Shaaep Hosting’s
default page error and replace the sponsor links parked pages with traditional
coming soon pages including a description of the nature of the private diners
club and link to austindinersclub.com. Respondent will be able to work with Wild
West Domain once to initiate that change once this Complaint is dismissed.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant contends that the Response is deficient for several
reasons. First, it does not contain the certification required under UDRP Rule
(5)(b)(viii). Second, Respondent failed to timely
serve electronic copies of the Response to the NAF and Complainant’s counsel.
For these reasons, Complainant requests that the Panel refuse to consider the
deficient Response.
However, should the Panel decide to consider the deficient Response,
Complainant requests that the Panel also considers the following substantive
observations regarding the content of the deficient Response:
Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant’s prima facie case.
Furthermore, Respondent does not deny the following allegations set forth in
the Complaint:
1. That Complainant has valid, enforceable
rights to its famous DINERS CLUB and DINERS CLUB INTERNATIONAL marks.
2. That Respondent’s domain names are
confusingly similar to the DINERS CLUB and DINES CLUB INTERNATIONAL marks.
3. That the Respondent had actual knowledge of
the famous DINERS CLUB and DINERS CLUB INTERNATIONAL marks before it registered
the confusingly similar domain names.
4. That the confusingly similar domain names
have been used in conjunction with landing pages which promote competing goods
and services.
Complainant’s contentions may be summarized as follows:
1. Respondent is responsible for content.
2. Complainant’s rights need not to be exclusive.
3. Complainant’s rights are not limited to credit card services.
4. Complainant’s marks are not “generic”. They are registered on the
USPTO Records and are incontestable.
5. Respondent has not produced demonstrable proof of a plan to use the
domain names in conjunction with a bona fide offering of goods and
services.
For all these reasons, Complainant requests again that the Panel issue
a decision to transfer the domain names to the Complainant.
In its additional Submission Respondent
replies to Complainant’s additional Submission. Respondent again contends that it is not
infringing Complainant’s trademarks and that Complainant’s trademarks are not
limited to financial services and therefore are not enforceable in this
situation.
Respondent was not registering theses domain names to compete or
provide confusion. Respondent was not aware of Complainant and was only focused
on expanding the business Austin Diners Club concept to cities as mentioned in
the original response.
Respondent repeats that it did not authorize the content and an
affidavit from the web hosting company is attached to this submission stating
as such and that Respondent did not profit from the parked pages.
The domains purchased were purchased in good faith for the purpose of
expanding the Austin Diners Club to other cities as stated in the radio
interview. That Austin Diner Club has a legal DBA in
Respondent was not capable to making changes to the parked pages since
Wild West Domains has locked the websites by that time.
Further, when the phrase “Diners Club” is entered in a search in MSN,
Yahoo, AOL or any other major search engine, the first page of results are
predominantly if not all Complainant’s credit cards products.
Respondent contends that these domain names were not bought to extort
money from Complainant, to divert traffic or confuse customers of Complainant
or to directly compete with Complainant and its services. Complainant
constantly seems to claim that austindinersclub.com and the 36 domains bought
to extend the company was bought in bad faith and is directly competing with
them. Diners clubs go to restaurants that are the purpose and to for restaurant
to be able to advertise on the dining club site is not in direct competition
with a credit card company services.
The purchase of the domain names were for a growth of a diner club in
which members meet monthly to dine in Austin Texas to move forward into other
cities. These domain names were not purchased in bad faith, or with the intent
to confuse, compete with, or sell back the domain name.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Although Respondent has provided a Response that
was deficient because a hard copy of the Response was not received before the
Response deadline, the Panel decides to consider Respondent’s submission. See Strum
v. Nordic Net
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(2) the 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.
Complainant claims it has used
the DINERS CLUB mark in connection with its credit card and travelers
assistance business for over 40 years and is internationally known by the
mark. Further, Complainant asserts it
has established rights in the DINERS CLUB mark through its registration of the
mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No.
828,013 issued April 25, 1967). The Panel finds that the registration of the
DINERS CLUB mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June
29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the]
complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”);
see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera,
FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s
federal trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks
were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i)).
Complainant contends, and the Panel finds, that the thirty-six disputed
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The disputed domain names all contain Complainant’s mark in its entirety
preceded by the name of a city in the
While Respondent contends that the disputed domain names are comprised of common, descriptive terms and as
such cannot be found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, the Panel
is of the view that such a determination is not necessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this portion of the Policy considers only whether
Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Tammy Upwall and Michael Upwall
d/b/a Got Beauty v. Kam Yaghobian d/b/a Got beauty products, FA 1122960 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2008)
(“Respondent contends that the <gotbeautyproducts.com>
domain name is comprised of generic terms, and that Complainant is not
exclusively associated with the GOT BEAUTY mark. Therefore, Respondent alleges that the
<gotbeautyproducts.com> domain name is not confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark. However, the Panel
finds that such a determination is not necessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) since this portion of the Policy considers only whether
Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.”); see also Eastern Metal Supply, Inc. v. Texas International Property
Associates - NA NA, FA 1238822 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 2, 2009) (“Respondent
alleges that the <easternmetalsupply.com> domain name is comprised of
generic terms. This point has
merit. However, this argument is not
directly applicable to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), but will be
discussed in greater detail in the analyses of Policy 4(a)(ii) and (iii).”).
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent
does not assume the burden of proof, but may establish a right or legitimate
interest in a disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with
paragraph 4(c) of the Policy:
(a) He
has made preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the
domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior
to the dispute;
(b) He is commonly known
by the domain name, even if he has not acquired any trademark rights; or
(c) He intends to make
a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
The Panel determines that the Complainant has discharged the onus of proof for the second criterion: The Respondent has failed to demonstrate any legitimate right or interest.
According to the majority of panel decisions this Panel also takes the position that while Complainant has the burden of proof on this issue, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. See Document Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Elec. Communications, Inc., D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000); see also Inter-Continental Hotel Corp. v. Soussi, D2000-0252 WIPO July 5, 2000); 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”); 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.”); 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).
Complainant asserts it has not granted any
license or permission to Respondent to use its DINERS CLUB mark. Further, Complainant contends Respondent is
not commonly known by any of the thirty six disputed domain names. The WHOIS information associated with the
disputed domain names lists Respondent as “GDCash LLC.” Respondent
has not submitted any evidence that it is commonly known by any of the disputed
domain names. The Panel finds that
Respondent has not any established rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain names 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 St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21,
2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a
disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that
the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain
names resolve to websites displaying links to third-party websites, some of
which directly compete with Complainant.
Complainant argues, and the Panel finds, that this use is not a bona
fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use under
Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), respectively. See 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); see
also Meyerson v. Speedy Web,
FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has
failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a
variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Complainant argues that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to offer links to Complainant’s
direct competitors has disrupted Complainant’s business. Since the Panel finds this to be the case, it
also finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
See Jerie v. Burian,
FA 795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006) (concluding that the
respondent registered and used the <sportlivescore.com> domain name in
order to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because
the respondent was maintaining a website in direct competition with the
complainant); see also Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock
Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding
that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com>
domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet
users to the respondent’s competing website).
The Complainant assets
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant contends Respondent is
intentionally attracting, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s
website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to
the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s
website. The Panel finds that this
constitutes bad faith registration and use under 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).
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 <albuquerquedinersclub.com>, <atlantadinersclub.com>, <bayareadinersclub.com>, <beavertondinersclub.com>, <birminghamdinersclub.com>, <bostondinersclub.com>, <charlottedinersclub.com>, <chicagodinersclub.com>, <citydinersclub.com>, <dcdinersclub.com>, <denverdinersclub.com>, <detroitdinersclub.com>, <indianapolisdinersclub.com>, <jacksonvilledinersclub.com>, <kansascitydinersclub.com>, <ladinersclub.com>, <lasvegasdinersclub.com>, <louisvilledinersclub.com>, <memphisdinersclub.com>, <miamidinersclub.com>, <milwaukeedinersclub.com>, <minneapolisdinersclub.com>, <nashvilledinersclub.com>, <nycdinersclub.com>, <orlandodinersclub.com>, <phillydinersclub.com>, <phoenixdinersclub.com>, <sandiegodinersclub.com>, <sanfranciscodinersclub.com>, <sanjosedinersclub.com>, <seattledinersclub.com>, <stlouisdinersclub.com>, <tucsondinersclub.com>, <dallasdinersclub.com>, <houstondinersclub.com>, and <sanantoniodinersclub.com> domain
names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dr. Reinhard Schanda Panelist
Dated: August 21, 2009
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum