American Express Company v. Fang Suhendro a/k/a American Express Indonesia
Claim Number: FA0211000129120
Complainant is American Express Company, New York, NY, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Dianne K. Cahill, of American Express Company. Respondent is Fang Suhendro a/k/a American Express Indonesia, Jakarta, INDONESIA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <americanexpressrewards.com>, registered with OnlineNIC.com.
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on November 4, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 4, 2002.
On November 14, 2002, OnlineNIC.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <americanexpressrewards.com> is registered with OnlineNIC.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OnlineNIC.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC.com 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 November 14, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of December 4, 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 email@example.com 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 18, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
The <americanexpressrewards.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AMERICAN EXPRESS mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has used its AMERICAN EXPRESS mark since 1850. Complainant holds numerous registrations for its AMERICAN EXPRESS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office including Registration Numbers 738,813; 1,024,840; 1,032,516; and 2,050,430. Complainant also holds trademark registrations in Indonesia including Registration Numbers 306,592; 306,641; 306,643; and 306,645, Respondent’s place of domicile. Complainant uses the mark in connection with its banking, travel and credit card services throughout the world. Complainant operates a website that it uses to promote its services at <americanexpress.com>.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 15, 2002. Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to display a website with links to various merchandisers throughout the Internet. Respondent does not have a license or permission from Complainant to use the AMERICAN EXPRESS mark.
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 AMERICAN EXPRESS mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, as well as its trademark registrations in Indonesia.
Respondent’s <americanexpressrewards.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN EXPRESS mark because it merely adds the generic term “rewards” to the end of Complainant’s mark. The addition of “rewards” does not add any distinctive features because it could easily be associated with Complainant’s business, and Complainant’s AMERICAN EXPRESS mark is still the dominant feature of the disputed domain name. See Body Shop Int’l PLC v. CPIC NET & Hussain, D2000-1214 (WIPO Nov. 26, 2000) (finding that the domain name <bodyshopdigital.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE BODY SHOP trademark); see also Quixtar Inv., Inc. v. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that because the domain name <quixtar-sign-up.com> incorporates in its entirety Complainant’s distinctive mark, QUIXTAR, the domain name is confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has failed to come forward with a Response. Therefore, the Panel is permitted to make reasonable inferences in favor of Complainant and accept Complainant’s allegations as true. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence); 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”).
Furthermore, based on Respondent’s failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all 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 Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name because Respondent never submitted a Response nor provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to provide links to various merchandisers throughout the Internet. Respondent is using Complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to this website, and therefore is not using the domain name 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 Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name); see also Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by using Complainant’s trademarks).
Based on the fame of Complainant’s mark it would be difficult for Respondent to establish that it is commonly known as AMERICAN EXPRESS REWARDS or <americanexpressrewards.com>. Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence to establish this fact, and therefore the Panel may infer that it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001) (finding sufficient proof that Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of Complainant’s well-established use of the mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its own website. This website features links to various online vendors. It can be inferred that Respondent is making a profit from the Internet traffic it directs to these vendors. This type of behavior, using a confusingly similar domain name to cause Internet user confusion for commercial gain, 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 State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on Complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to Respondent’s website).
Based on the fame of Complainant’s mark, and the fact that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to attract Internet users to its website, it can be inferred that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name. 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 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"); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith).
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 the requested relief shall be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <americanexpressrewards.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: December 30, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page