Alienware Corporation v. Domain Admin c/o Domains Plus
Claim Number: FA0910001290033
Complainant is Alienware Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Steven
M. Levy,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <alianware.com>, registered with Moniker.
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 16, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 20, 2009.
On October 21, 2009, Moniker confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <alianware.com> domain name is registered with Moniker and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker 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 28, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 17, 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@alianware.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 25, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 <alianware.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALIENWARE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <alianware.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <alianware.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Alienware Corporation, is a leader in producing computers designed for gaming and other graphically intense applications. Complainant owns two trademark registrations for the ALIENWARE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., 2,616,204 filed on June 1, 1999 and issued September 10, 2002).
Respondent registered the <alianware.com> domain name on November 29, 2001. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying third-party links to websites offering computers in competition with Complainant.
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 established rights in the ALIENWARE mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registrations of the mark with the USPTO
(e.g., 2,616,204 filed on June 1, 1999 and issued September 10, 2002). See
Miller Brewing
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <alianware.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s ALIENWARE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel find that Respondent’s disputed
domain name contains a phonetically similar misspelled version of Complainant’s
mark and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that a disputed domain name
that contains a misspelled version of a complainant’s mark fails to realize a
distinguishing characteristic and creates a confusing similarity between the
disputed domain name and the complainant’s mark. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,
D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by
only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly
similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini,
FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words
and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but
nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s
marks). In addition, the Panel finds
that the addition of a gTLD fails to distinguish a disputed domain name from a
registered mark. See 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); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429
(WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as
“.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining
whether it is identical or confusingly similar). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <alianware.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s ALIENWARE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See 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.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by and has never been licensed to register the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that registrant’s WHOIS information demonstrates that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s <alianware.com>
domain name resolves to a website featuring click-through links and
advertisements for Complainant’s competitors in the computer industry. The
Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s
competitors, presumably for financial gain, does not constitute 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 Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com>
domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel
services that competed with the complainant was not 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 also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16,
2007) (concluding that using a confusingly similar domain name to divert
Internet users to competing websites does not represent a bona fide offering
of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
In addition, Complainant
contends that Respondent has engaged in the practice of typosquatting. Respondent is taking advantage of Internet
users that are attempting to reach Complainant, but mistakenly misspelling
Complainant’s ALIENWARE mark. The Panel
finds that Respondent’s engagement in the practice of typosquatting is evidence
that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See LTD
Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA
165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>,
<ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain
names were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark
and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring links to Complainant’s competitors in the computer industry. The confusingly similar disputed domain name likely attracts Internet users that are attempting to access Complainant’s website. Those Internet users are unknowingly redirected to the websites of Complainant’s competitors. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees from the use of the aforementioned hyperlinks. Respondent is attempting to profit by creating a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and the resolving website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
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 <alianware.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: December 9, 2009
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM