Claim Number: FA0912001299063
Complainant is
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <baylormedicalschool.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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 December 15, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 16, 2009.
On December 15, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, 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 December 16, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 5, 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@baylormedicalschool.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 12, 2010, 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 <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BAYLOR mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant,
Respondent, Justin Mitts, registered the <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name on July 17, 2009. The disputed domain name previously resolved to a parked website containing third-party hyperlinks unrelated to Complainant. The disputed domain name currently fails to resolve to an active website.
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 registered its BAYLOR mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,465,910 issued November 17, 1987). Previous panels have held that trademark registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the BAYLOR mark through its registration with the USPTO. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BAYLOR mark. The disputed domain name combines Complainant’s mark with the descriptive terms “medical” and “school,” which relate to Complainant’s Baylor College of Medicine. Previous panels have found the addition of descriptive terms fails to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Easynet Ltd, FA 944330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (“The additions of generic words with an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business and a gTLD renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the addition of the generic term “finance,” which described the complainant’s financial services business, as well as a gTLD, did not sufficiently distinguish the respondent’s disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The disputed domain name also contains the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Previous panels have held the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”). Therefore, the Panel finds, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Respondent’s <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BAYLOR mark.
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any
rights or legitimate interests in the <baylormedicalschool.com>
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 Document Techs., Inc. v. Int’l
Elec. Commc’ns Inc., D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000) (“Although Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove the presence of this
element (along with the other two), once a Complainant makes out a prima
facie showing, the burden of production on this factor shifts to the
Respondent to rebut the showing by providing concrete evidence that it has
rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.”); 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
the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint).
Respondent offers no evidence to suggest Respondent is commonly known by the <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name. Furthermore, the Panel fails to find evidence in the record that Respondent is commonly known by the <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized to use the BAYLOR mark. The WHOIS information lists the domain name registrant as “Justin Mitts.” Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent has failed to establish rights or legitimate interests in the <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).
Respondent formerly used the <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name to resolve to a website featuring third-party hyperlinks unrelated to Complainant. Respondent likely received click-through fees for the aforementioned hyperlinks. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant).
Respondent currently fails to make an active use of the <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name. Since Complainant sent Respondent a cease-and-desist letter on October 21, 2009, Respondent has not made any use of the website resolving from the disputed domain name. The Panel finds Respondent’s failure to actively use the disputed domain name is further evidence that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel infers Respondent received click-through fees from
the third-party hyperlinks previously featured on the website resolving from <baylormedicalschool.com>
domain name. Respondent used the
confusingly similar disputed domain name to profit from Internet user’s
confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resolving website. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile
USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA
697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of
a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet
traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees
or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also The Ass’n of Junior Leagues
Int’l Inc. v. This Domain Name My Be For
The website currently resolving from the <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name is not an active webpage. Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name after receiving Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. The Panel finds this failure to make an active use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The Panel finds 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 <baylormedicalschool.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 25, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum