National Arbitration Forum




Cabela's, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc

Claim Number: FA0909001283152



Complainant is Cabela's, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc (“Respondent”), represented by Christopher J. Pirrone, of Connexus Corporation, California, USA.



The domain names at issue are <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <>, registered with Basic Fusion, 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.


Dawn Osborne as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 4, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 8, 2009.


On September 8, 2009, Basic Fusion, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names are registered with Basic Fusion, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Basic Fusion, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Basic Fusion, 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 September 11, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 1, 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,,,,,,, and by e-mail.


A Response was received and determined to be complete on October 2, 2009, however, it was deemed deficient pursuant to ICANN Rule 5 because it was received in hard copy one day after the response deadline.


An Additional Submission was received from the Complainant on October 7, 2009 in compliance with Supplemental Rule 7. 


On 8 October pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.



Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant


The Complainant is the largest mail order, Internet and retail outdoor outfitter in the world. The complainant produces 100 catalogs a year. Based in Nebraska the Complainant ships to 50 states of the US and to 125 countries. It has been using CABELAS in association with its retail services since 1961. 


The Complainant’s web site has been at <> since 1998 and was ranked no. 1 in the outdoor retailer industry in 2006.   The Complainant has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising spend.


The Complainant owns US registered trade marks for inter alia CABELA’S, CABELAS.COM, CABELAS in the fields of retail services and outdoor gear.  


The Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks as they differ by only the addition of one letter, the removal of one letter, the substitution of one incorrect letter or non distinct additions.    


The Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names. It is not commonly known by the Domain Names. He is not permitted to use the Domain Names by the Complainant. He is not using the Domain Names to provide bona fide goods or services or using for legitimate non commercial use. He is using some of the names as link farms for commercial benefit. Its registration of the Domain Names was a long time after the Complainant registered their marks and used in commerce.


The Respondent has registered and used in bad faith. The Respondent’s behaviour is classic typosquatting. The Respondent is a serial typosquatter as revealed by searches of the NAF and WIPO databases and other registrations the Respondent owns. Some of the web sites reached by the Domain Names spell the Complainant’s name correctly showing the Complainant to be the target of the actions of the Respondent. 


B. Respondent


Respondent lacks bad faith and was not aware of the Complainant. Respondent has offered a voluntary transfer of the Domain Names. Respondent requests a transfer of the Domain Names without further findings. It is inappropriate to issue any kind of decision other than the transfer of the Domain Names. 


C. Additional Submissions


The Complainant does not believe that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant when it registered the Domain Names as it points the names to site of competitors of the Complainant and due to the Complainant’s extensive reputation. The Complainant is a serial typosquatter seeking to avoid an adverse finding to try to present a reputation as a legitimate company rather than a blatant cybersquatter. The Complainant opposes the Respondent’s request for a decision without findings.



The Complainant owns US registered trade marks for CABELA’S, CABELAS.COM, CABELAS in the fields of retail services and outdoor gear and has been using in commerce since 1961.


The Respondent registered the Domain Names between 2004 and 2007 and pointed some of them to link farms for third party web sites.     



The Response was only submitted in electronic copy before the deadline for the Response. The hard copy arrived after the deadline. Nevertheless the Panelist in its discretion has considered the Respondent’s submissions in full. This is in the interests of a fair decision and is not prejudicial to the Complainant.   


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.


ICANN Policy 4(a) Analysis


The Panel’s view is that the Complainant has shown it has rights in the name CABELAS  and, as the Respondent has engaged in serial typosquatting employing domain names to point to third party link farms, the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name and is currently holding the Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent has given no reasons why typosquatting versions of the CABELAS name was adopted and its assertions that it was not aware of the Conplainant is not believed by the panelist given the number of typosquatting names adopted and the use made of them. The Domain Names were adopted in bad faith. The panelist sees no reason not to state its basic finding on these issues. Indeed these basic findings give it the jurisdiction to order transfer of the Domain Names under the Policy. 


However, in circumstances such as this where the Respondent has not contested the transfer of the Domain Name and agrees to transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the lengthy traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names.  See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”). The Panel also notes that the Respondent has received the benefit of legal advice. As such the Panel will order the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.  



Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy and having reviewed the Complainant’s request for relief and the Respondent’s consent to that relief with legal advice the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the Domain Names be TRANSFERRED  from Respondent to Complainant.




Dawn Osborne, Palmer Biggs Legal, Panelist
Dated: 22 October 2009







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum