Vanguard
Trademark Holdings
Claim Number: FA1002001305991
Complainant is Vanguard
Trademark Holdings USA LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Andrea Anderson of Holland & Hart LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <800goalamo.com>, registered with Register.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically February 2, 2010. With its Complaint, Complainant also chose to proceed entirely electronically under the new Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”) and the new Forum’s Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”) by submitted an “opt-in” form available on the Forum’s website.
On February 3, 2010, Register.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <800goalamo.com> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.Com, Inc. registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On February 4, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 2010, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@800goalamo.com. Also on February 4, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 3, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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. The
domain name that Respondent registered, <800goalamo.com>, is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s
2. Respondent has no tights to or legitimate interests in the <800goalamo.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <800goalamo.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC, licenses
its
Respondent, Hyung Kim, registered the disputed domain name April 14, 2009. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays links to car services from Complainant’s direct competitors.
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."
Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 provided the Panel with evidence of its
registration of the
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <800goalamo.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) analysis, Complainant must first make a prima facie case demonstrating that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <800goalamo.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has done so in these proceedings. Once Complainant satisfies this burden, Respondent then has the burden to demonstrate that it possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). In the present proceedings, Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s allegations. The Panel may infer from this failure that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the <800goalamo.com> domain name. 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 Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). However, this Panel examines the record to determine if evidence there suggests that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known
by the <800goalamo.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The WHOIS
information lists the registrant of the <800goalamo.com> domain
name as “Hyung Kim,” which does not reflect that Respondent is commonly known
by the disputed domain name or by Complainant’s
Furthermore, the <800goalamo.com> domain name resolves to a website displaying click-through links resolving to the websites of Complainant’s competitors in the car rental industry. Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to the websites of Complainant’s competitors does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), respectively. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent has not used the <800goalamo.com> domain name 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). See Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute 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 Royal Bank of Scotland Grp plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not 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), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites).
The Panel finds that Complainant
satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is using the <800goalamo.com> domain
name to resolve to a website displaying click-through links promoting
businesses in direct competition with Complainant in the car rental
industry. The Panel finds that this
diversion of Internet users to Respondent’s disputed domain name likely
disrupts Complainant’s business and thus, constitutes bad faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
David Hall Rare Coins v.
Furthermore, Respondent is presumably using the disputed domain name to collect click-through fees. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name creates a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the <800goalamo.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is likely profiting from this confusion through the receipt of click-through or referral fees. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the <800goalamo.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); 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 Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <800goalamo.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: March 17, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum