Disney Enterprises, Inc. v.
Rosa Tanoeiro
Claim Number: FA0908001277015
PARTIES
Complainant is Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by J. Andrew Coombs, of J. Andrew Coombs, A Professional Corporation, California, USA. Respondent is Rosa Tanoeiro (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dealsdisney.info>, registered with Enom.
PANEL
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on July 31, 2009; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 3, 2009.
On August 3, 2009, Enom confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <dealsdisney.info> domain name is
registered with Enom and that the
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom
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 August 6, 2009, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of August 26, 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@dealsdisney.info by e-mail.
An electronic Response was received on August
6, 2009. The Response was not
received in hard copy prior to the deadline.
The National Arbitration Forum therefore does not consider the Response
to be in compliance with ICANN Rule 5.
On September 1, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National
Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <dealsdisney.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <dealsdisney.info> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <dealsdisney.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
filed a deficient response, which indicated no opposition to transfer. The Panel will nonetheless examine the record
against the requirements discussed below.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Disney Enterprises, Inc., is a worldwide leading producer of entertainment goods and services. Complainant owns hundreds of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the DISNEY mark, including Reg. No. 1,162,727 issued July 28, 1981.
Respondent registered the <dealsdisney.info> domain name on November 11, 2008. Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites offering products in direct competition with Complainant.
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.”
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 is the owner of multiple
registrations for the DISNEY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office and other governmental trademark authorities around the world. The Panel finds that Complainant has
established rights in the DISNEY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its
registrations of the mark with various authorities. Furthermore, the Panel finds that it is not
necessary for Complainant to have registered its DISNEY mark in the country of
Respondent’s residence. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7,
2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in
the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that
the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction); 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’)”).
Respondent’s <dealsdisney.info> domain name is confusingly similar to its DISNEY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s DISNEY mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the common word “deals” and the affixation of the top-level domain “.info.” The Panel finds that the <dealsdisney.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google Inc. v. Xtraplus Corp., D2001-0125 (WIPO Apr. 16, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as “buy” or “gear” to the end); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Zournas, FA 1093928 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 10, 2007) (“the Panel finds that Respondent’s <windows.info> domain name is identical to Complainant’s WINDOWS mark as the addition of a gTLD is a necessary addition in the creation of any domain name and therefore an indistinguishing characteristic under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).“).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima
facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to
Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie
case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to
show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA
780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima
facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in
the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the
burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate
interests in the subject domain names.”).
Respondent is listed as “Rosa Tanoeiro” in the WHOIS information for the <dealsdisney.info> domain
name. Based on this information,
together with Respondent’s failure to address this element of the Policy in its
Response, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <dealsdisney.info> 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 IndyMac Bank F.S.B.
v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the
respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the
<emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to
register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit
evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to compete with Complainant’s business by offering products under the DISNEY mark on the website resolving from the disputed domain name. The Panel presumes Respondent is profiting through the sale of said products. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s use of the <dealsdisney.info> domain name is not in connection with 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 Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) (finding that the respondent used a domain name for commercial benefit by diverting Internet users to a website that sold goods and services similar to those offered by the complainant and thus, was not using the name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Halpern, D2000-0700 (WIPO Dec. 10, 2000) (finding that domain names used to sell the complainant’s goods without the complainant’s authority, as well as others’ goods, is not bona fide use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain
name, to sell unauthorized products under the DISNEY mark, constitutes a
disruption to Complainant’s business.
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has registered and is using
the <dealsdisney.info> domain
name in bad faith under Policy
¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com
Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28,
2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s
customers to Respondent’s competing business.
The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and
use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see
also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s CELEBREX
mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy ¶
4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent is using the confusingly similar
disputed domain name for commercial gain, evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <saflock.com>
domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the
respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name
resolved to a website that offered similar products as those sold under the
complainant’s famous mark).
The Panel finds that Respondent had
actual notice of Complainant and its longstanding rights in the mark based on
the widespread fame and notoriety of the DISNEY mark throughout the world,
further evidence of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher,
D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent had actual and
constructive knowledge of the complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide
prominence of the mark and thus the respondent registered the domain name in
bad faith); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the
domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks
and logos are prominently displayed.
Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business
and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited
by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”).
The Panel finds that ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
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 <dealsdisney.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 15, 2009
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum