TechSmith Corporation v. snagit.net and
P.Herceg
Claim Number: FA0210000128641
PARTIES
Complainant
is TechSmith Corporation, Okemos, MI
(“Complainant”) represented by James R.
Duby, Jr., of Gallagher Duby, PLC. Respondent is snagit.net and P. Herceg Bethlehem,
PA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <snagit.net>,
registered with TuCows, 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.
James
P. Buchele as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on October 17, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on October 18, 2002.
On
October 18, 2002, TuCows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <snagit.net> is
registered with TuCows, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. TuCows, Inc. has verified
that Respondent is bound by the TuCows, 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
October 23, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of November 12, 2002 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@snagit.net by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
December 5, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”)
finds that the 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 Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and
principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any
Response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
The
<snagit.net>
domain name is identical to Complainant's SNAGIT mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant registered its SNAGIT mark
with the United States Patent and Trademark office on October 14, 1997 and it
currently holds Registration Number 2,104,800.
Complainant has also applied for trademark registration in the European
Union. Complainant has used the
trademark in commerce since 1991 in connection with the public distribution of
its screen capture utility software.
Complainant registered the domain name <snagit.com> in 1997.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name <snagit.net> on March 29, 2000. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet
users to <rewardminutes.com> where there is a website offering phone
card, fax, pager and computer service plans.
DISCUSSION
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 the 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.
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 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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has
rights in the SNAGIT mark through proof of continuous use since 1991 and
trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Respondent’s <snagit.net>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates
Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the generic top-level domain
“.net.” The addition of a generic
top-level domain name does not create any distinguishing characteristics
because it is a required element of every domain name. Therefore, the addition of a top-level
domain does not overcome a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) identical analysis. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding
<pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic
top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see
also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135,
1146 (9th
Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (“Internet users searching for a company’s [w]ebsite . . .
assume, as a rule of thumb, that the domain name of a particular company will
be the company name [or trademark] followed by ‘.com.’”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
When Complainant asserts a prima facie
case against Respondent, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that
it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Respondent has failed to respond; therefore
it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. See Do The
Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that
once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in respect of the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible
evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the
domain name); see also Parfums
Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that
by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance
which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
Furthermore, because Respondent has not
submitted a Response, it is appropriate for the Panel to accept all reasonable
allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true. See Vertical
Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum
July 31, 2000) (failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in
the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw
adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint).
Respondent is using the disputed domain
name <snagit.net> to divert Internet users to
<rewardminutes.com>. This website
offers Internet users phone card, fax, pager and computer service plans. The use of Complainant’s trademark as a
means of diverting Internet users to Respondent’s website is not considered to
be 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 pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com,
D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in
the famous MSNBC mark where Respondent attempted to profit using Complainant’s
mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website); see also Household Int’l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enter.,
FA 95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2000) (inferring that Respondent registered
the domain name <householdbank.com>, which incorporates Complainants
HOUSEHOLD BANK mark, with hopes of attracting Complainant’s customers and thus
finding no rights or legitimate interests).
Furthermore, there is no evidence on
record that Respondent is commonly known by SNAGIT or <snagit.net>. Although Respondent’s WHOIS information says
that its name is SNAGIT.NET, the disputed domain name diverts Internet users to
<rewardminutes.com>, a website that does not use SNAGIT or SNAGIT.NET to
identify Respondent’s business or services.
That being the only evidence before the Panel, and Complainant having
established a prima facie case, Respondent has failed to meets its
burden of proof and therefore has not established that it has rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA
96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using
the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc.,
FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by
Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the domain names in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent is using the disputed domain
name, identical to Complainant’s mark, in order to divert Internet users to a
website that offers communication services for sale. It can be inferred that Respondent is making a profit either from
the sales generated at this website, or from the amount of Internet traffic it
diverts to <rewardminutes.com>.
Respondent therefore, registered and used the disputed domain name in
order to create a likelihood of confusion for its own commercial gain. This behavior is evidence of bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Kahn, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22,
2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of
Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and
Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent
is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)); see also
Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli,
FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent
directed Internet users seeking Complainant’s site to its own website for
commercial gain).
Based on the fact that Respondent
registered the disputed domain name in order to divert Internet users to
<rewardminutes.com> for its own commercial gain, it can be inferred that
Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s mark and registered the disputed
domain name because it knew that Complainant’s mark would attract Internet
traffic. Registration of an infringing
domain name, despite actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is evidence of
bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of
bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s
trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Entrepreneur
Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that
"[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to
another, one can infer an intent to confuse").
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief
shall be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <snagit.net> be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
James P. Buchele, Panelist
Dated: December 9, 2002
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page