Omega SA v. Domain Admin
Claim Number: FA1001001302921
Complainant is Omega SA (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew
C. Wagner, of Collen IP, Intellectual Property Law, P.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <omegawatchstore.com>, registered with Dotster.
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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On January 14, 2010, a Written Notice of Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
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") (effective March 1, 2010, but opted-in to by Complainant for this case) "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 <omegawatchstore.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OMEGA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <omegawatchstore.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <omegawatchstore.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Omega SA, owns
numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) for the OMEGA mark (e.g.,
Reg. No. 566,370 issued
Respondent registered the
disputed domain name <omegawatchstore.com> 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 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 asserts rights in its OMEGA mark through its
holding of multiple registrations for the OMEGA mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 566,370 issued
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <omegawatchstore.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s OMEGA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s OMEGA mark because Respondent’s domain
name merely adds the descriptive phrase “watch store” and the generic top-level
domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds
that the addition of a descriptive phrase creates a confusing similarity
between the disputed domain names and Complainant’s mark. See
Space Imaging LLC v.
Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no 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 it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Based on the arguments made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case in support of its contentions and Respondent has failed to submit a Response to these proceedings. 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 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). Nevertheless, the Panel will examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
WHOIS information for the disputed domain name does not indicate Respondent is
commonly known by any variant of the disputed domain name. Without evidence in the record to the
contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed
domain name pursuant to 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
Respondent’s disputed domain name was registered on
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain
name to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products constitutes a
disruption of Complainant’s business pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat.
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website offering counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users attempting to access Complainant’s goods and services and redirect them to the disputed domain name and profit is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Fossil Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by registering the <fossilwatch.com> domain name and using it to sell various watch brands where the respondent was not authorized to sell the complainant’s goods); see also Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name resolved to a website that offered similar products as those sold under the complainant’s famous mark).
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 <omegawatchstore.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: February 24, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum