IMT Services Corporation v. Joel McLaughlin
Claim Number: FA0909001283676
Complainant is IMT Services Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Fritz
L. Schweitzer III, of St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <insuringmytrip.com>, registered with 1 & 1 Internet Ag.
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.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 12, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 <insuringmytrip.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INSURE MY TRIP mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <insuringmytrip.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <insuringmytrip.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, IMT Services
Corporation, offers travel insurance comparison, brokerage, and agency services
under the INSURE MY TRIP mark.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued
Complainant a registration for the INSURE MY TRIP mark (Reg. No. 3,007,162) on
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
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the
INSURE MY TRIP mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,007,162 issued
The <insuringmytrip.com> domain name differs from
Complainant’s INSURE MY TRIP mark by changing the tense of the first word to a
present participle, omitting the spaces between the words, and adding the
generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
The Panel finds that these differences create a domain name that is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s INSURE MY TRIP mark under Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC
v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554
(Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
The initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is on Complainant
to prove that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name. Once
Complainant has made a prima facie
case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or
legitimate interests pursuant to the directions provided in Policy ¶ 4(c). See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA
1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <insuringmytrip.com> domain name
resolves to a website that offers links to third-party websites, some of which
are competitors of Complainant. The
Panel finds that this use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards,
FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds no evidence in the record suggesting that
Respondent is commonly known by the <insuringmytrip.com> domain
name. Complainant asserts that
Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent
to use the INSURE MY TRIP mark, and the WHOIS information identifies Respondent
as “Joel McLaughlin.” Thus, Respondent has not established rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi,
FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the <insuringmytrip.com> domain name,
which was registered on
The Panel infers
that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to
third-party websites. Because
Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INSURE
MY TRIP mark, Internet users accessing
Respondent’s disputed domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s
affiliation with the resulting website.
Thus, Respondent’s use of the <insuringmytrip.com>
domain name constitutes bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex
Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum
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 <insuringmytrip.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: October 28, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum