Rediff.com India Ltd. v. Sri Padma Infoway c/o Administrator
Claim Number: FA1001001302295
Complainant is Rediff.com India Ltd. (“Complainant”)
represented by Pravin Anand, of Anand &
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <rediff.us>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
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 Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
(the “Forum”) electronically on
On January 21, 2010, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 10, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”).
Having received no Response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the 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.
1. Respondent’s <rediff.us> domain name is identical to Complainant’s REDIFF mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <rediff.us> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <rediff.us> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Rediff.com India Ltd. is a
worldwide leader in offering Internet-based services. Complainant owns a trademark registration
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the REDIFF
mark (Reg. No. 3,101,026 filed
Respondent registered the <rediff.us> domain name on
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(f), 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 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Respondent registered the <rediff.us> domain name on
provided evidence of a trademark registration of the REDIFF mark with the USPTO
(Reg. No. 3,101,026 filed
that Respondent’s <rediff.us> domain name is identical to
Complainant’s REDIFF mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name contains
Complainant’s mark in its entirety and adds the country-code top-level domain
(“ccTLD”) “.us.” The Panel finds
that the addition of a ccTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain
name from a registered mark. See Lifetouch, Inc.
v. Fox Photographics, FA 414667 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <rediff.us> domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
The Panel finds that Respondent has not presented any evidence demonstrating
that it is the owner or beneficiary of a mark identical to the <rediff.us> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds
that Respondent cannot satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Meow Media Inc. v. Basil, FA 113280 (Nat. Arb.
Complainant contends that Respondent is neither commonly known by nor licensed to register the disputed domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies registrant as “Sri Padma Infoway c/o Administrator.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint and absent any affirmative evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website
displaying third-party links to websites unrelated to Complainant. The Panel presumes that Respondent receives click-through fees for these
hyperlinks. Therefore, the Panel finds
that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy
¶ 4(c)(iv). See Constellation
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent’s identical disputed domain name resolves to a website that
displays the aforementioned hyperlinks, for which, presumably, Respondent
receives click-through fees. The Panel
finds that this use of the disputed domain name by Respondent creates a
likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed
domain name. Accordingly, the Panel
finds that Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Ass’n of Junior Leagues Int’l
Inc. v. This Domain Name My Be For
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rediff.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: March 4, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM