national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Philosophy Inc. v. 1-800-Therapist c/o Donald Hackett

Claim Number: FA0912001297666

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Philosophy Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by J. Rick Tache, of Snell & Wilmer LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is 1-800-Therapist c/o Donald Hackett (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <1800philosophy.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com.

 

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.

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 4, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 17, 2009.

 

On December 7, 2009, GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <1800philosophy.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  GoDaddy.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.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 December 18, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 7, 2010 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@1800philosophy.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On January 19, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <1800philosophy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PHILOSOPHY mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <1800philosophy.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <1800philosophy.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Philosophy Inc., is a personal wellness company and a leading provider of high quality skin care and cosmetic products.  Complainant holds a registration of the PHILOSOPHY mark, which is used in connection with its products, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,016,208 issued November 12, 1996).

 

Respondent, 1-800-Therapist c/o Donald Hackett, registered the <1800philosophy.com> domain name on October 14, 2009.  The disputed domain name does not resolve to a website, but redirects Internet users to another unrelated commercial website resolving from the <1800therapist.com> domain name that promotes a therapist search service. 

 

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 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the PHILOSOPHY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,016,208 issued November 12, 1996).  See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.").

 

Respondent’s <1800philosophy.com> domain name contains Complainant’s PHILOSOPHY mark in its entirety, adds the numerical phrase “1800,” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  The Panel finds that the <1800philosophy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PHILOSOPHY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because none of these additions to Complainant’s mark sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark.  See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“[T]he fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity [sic] or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that adding the suffixes "502" and "520" to the ICQ trademark does little to reduce the potential for confusion); see also 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).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.      

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Initially, Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Once this showing is made, the burden then shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  The burden now shifts to Respondent, from whom no response was received.  See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent.  In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).  Although Respondent did not allege that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel elects to examine the record under Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

The WHOIS information for the <1800philosophy.com> domain name lists “1-800-Therapist c/o Donald Hackett” as the registrant.  Respondent has not offered any evidence to suggest that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) applies in this case.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).

 

Respondent’s <1800philosophy.com> domain name does not resolve to a website, but redirects Internet users to another unrelated commercial website resolving from the <1800therapist.com> domain name that promotes a therapist search service.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to merely redirect Internet users 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).  See Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (“Respondent's use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant's business 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).”); see also Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Since Respondent registered the <1800philosophy.com> domain name on October 14, 2009, the disputed domain name has resolved to an unrelated commercial website resolving from the <1800therapist.com> domain name that promotes a therapist search service.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar in this manner creates a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name.  The Panel further finds that Respondent is commercially gaining from this likelihood of confusion through its therapist search service, which constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“the Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <1800philosophy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  February 2, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum