national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Morningstar, Inc. v. Future Movie Name c/o Domain Manager

Claim Number: FA1001001303916

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Morningstar, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brody Stout, of CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is Future Movie Name c/o Domain Manager (“Respondent”), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mourningstar.com>, registered with Directnic, Ltd.

 

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 January 20, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 21, 2010.

 

On January 21, 2010, Directnic, Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <mourningstar.com> domain name is registered with Directnic, Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Directnic, Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directnic, Ltd 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 January 25, 2010, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 16, 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@mourningstar.com by e-mail.

 

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

 

On February 25, 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 <mourningstar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORNINGSTAR mark.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Morningstar, Inc., provides information on stocks, mutual funds, variable annuities, closed-end funds, exchange-traded funds, separate accounts, hedge funds, and 529 college savings plans.  Since 1984, Complainant has continuously used the MORNINGSTAR mark in connection with its financial investment publications.  Complainant holds several registrations of the MORNINGSTAR mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,866,773 issued December 13, 1994).

 

Respondent, Future Movie Name c/o Domain Manager, registered the <mourningstar.com> domain name on March 11, 2000.  The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant.

 

 

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 sufficiently established rights in the MORNINGSTAR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its several registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,866,773 issued December 13, 1994).  See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Morgan Stanley v. Fitz-James, FA 571918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2005) (finding from a preponderance of the evidence that the complainant had registered its mark with national trademark authorities, the Panel determined that “such registrations present a prima facie case of Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).

 

Respondent’s <mourningstar.com> domain name contains a common misspelling of Complainant’s MORNINGSTAR mark, adding the letter “u,” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  The Panel finds that these additions to Complainant’s mark do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds that the <mourningstar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORNINGSTAR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); 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

 

Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Once Complainant makes this showing, 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 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 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 had 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 <mourningstar.com> domain name lists “Future Movie Name c/o Domain Manager” as the registrant, which does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.  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 <mourningstar.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); 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 <mourningstar.com> domain name resolves to a website that displays hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant.  The Panel presumes that Respondent receives click-through fees for these hyperlinks.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <mourningstar.com> domain name is not 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 Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not 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 ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be a use 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)).

 

Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting because Respondent is taking advantage of a common misspelling of Complainant’s MORNINGSTAR mark.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s engagement in typosquatting is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <mourningstar.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Since Respondent registered the <mourningstar.com> domain name on March 11, 2000, the disputed domain name has resolved to a website that displays hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business.  The Panel further finds that such a disruption constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant’s website, the respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <mourningstar.com> domain name 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 presumed receipt of click-through fees, which constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees.   Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also 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)).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent’s aforementioned engagement in typosquatting is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp., FA 328127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2004) (“By engaging in typosquatting, [r]espondent has registered and used the <vangard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

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

 

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 <mourningstar.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

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

Dated:  March 11, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum