Microsoft Corporation v. Luis Enrique Varela Ponce
Claim Number: FA0907001273964
Complainant is Microsoft Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Molly
Buck Richard, of Richard Law Group, Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <perumicrosoft.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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 July 15, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 16, 2009.
On July 17, 2009, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <perumicrosoft.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that 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 17, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 6, 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@perumicrosoft.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 12, 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 <perumicrosoft.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <perumicrosoft.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <perumicrosoft.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Microsoft Corporation, has manufactured, marketed, and sold computer software and related products and services since 1975 under the MICROSOFT mark. Complainant holds numerous registrations of its MICROSOFT mark with many governmental trademark authorities throughout the world, including the Peruvian trademark authority and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (i.e., Reg. No. 1,200,236 issued July 6, 1982).
Respondent registered the <perumicrosoft.com> domain name on April 10, 2006. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that advertises the services of a company that is unrelated to Complainant and the majority of the website appears to be under construction.
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.
Complainant has presented evidence of numerous registrations of the MICROSOFT mark with many governmental trademark authorities throughout the world, including the USPTO. The Panel finds that such evidence is sufficient for Complainant to establish rights in the MICROSOFT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Morgan Stanley v. Fitz-James, FA 571918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2005) (finding from a preponderance of the evidence that the complainant had registered its mark with national trademark authorities, the Panel determined that “such registrations present a prima facie case of Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <perumicrosoft.com>
domain name contains Complainant’s entire MICROSOFT mark, merely adds the
geographic term “peru,” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)
“.com.” The Panel finds that these
additions to Complainant’s mark do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed
domain name from Complainant’s mark.
Accordingly, the Panel further finds that Respondent’s <perumicrosoft.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark under Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Gannett Co. v. Chan, D2004-0117 (WIPO Apr. 8, 2004) (“…it is
well established that a domain name consisting of a well-known mark, combined
with a geographically descriptive term or phrase, is confusingly similar to the
mark.”); see also 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Upon making such a showing, the burden then shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”).
Respondent’s confusingly similar <perumicrosoft.com> domain name resolves to a website
that is mostly under construction, but does contain an advertisement for a
company that is unrelated to Complainant.
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name
to divert Internet users to the resolving website for its own commercial
gain. The Panel agrees with this
contention and finds that Respondent’s use of the <perumicrosoft.com> domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor 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 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).”).
Moreover, the WHOIS information for Respondent’s <perumicrosoft.com> domain name lists “Luis Enrique Varela Ponce” as the registrant. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not licensed to use the MICROSOFT mark. Respondent has not offered any evidence to show that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) applies in this case. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <perumicrosoft.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the <perumicrosoft.com> domain name to
commercially gain from the confusing similarity between the disputed domain
name and Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark.
The disputed domain name resolves to website that is mostly under
construction, but does contain an advertisement for a company that is unrelated
to Complainant. The Panel agrees with
Complainant’s assertion and finds that Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad
faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Corp. v.
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 <perumicrosoft.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: August 26, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum