national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

TC Loan Service, LLC v. Eyal Hay Moshe

Claim Number: FA1002001308488

 

PARTIES

Complainant is TC Loan Service, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA.  Respondent is Eyal Hay Moshe (“Respondent”), Israel.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <0aydayone.com>, <apydayone.com>, <laydayone.com>, <oaydayone.com>, <pa6dayone.com>, <pa7dayone.com>, <padyayone.com>, <pagdayone.com>, <pahdayone.com>, <pajdayone.com>, <paudayone.com>, <paycayone.com>, <payda6one.com>, <payda7one.com>, <paydagone.com>, <paydahone.com>, <paydajone.com>, <paydauone.com>, <payday9ne.com>, <paydaykne.com>, <paydaylne.com>, <paydayne.com>, <paydayobe.com>, <paydayoen.com>, <paydayohe.com>, <paydayoje.com>, <paydayon3.com>, <paydayon4.com>, <paydayond.com>, <paydayonf.com>, <paydayonr.com>, <paydayons.com>, <paydayonw.com>, <paydqyone.com>, <paydsyone.com>, <paydwyone.com>, <paydxyone.com>, <paydyaone.com> ,<paydzyone.com>, <payeayone.com>, <payfayone.com>, <payrayone.com>, <paysayone.com>, <payxayone.com>, <pqydayone.com>, <psydayone.com>, <pwydayone.com>, <pxydayone.com>, <pyadayone.com>, and <pzydayone.com>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.

 

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.

 

Louis E. Condon as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 17, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 18, 2010.

 

On February 17, 2010, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <0aydayone.com>, <apydayone.com>, <laydayone.com>, <oaydayone.com>, <pa6dayone.com>, <pa7dayone.com>, <padyayone.com>, <pagdayone.com>, <pahdayone.com>, <pajdayone.com>, <paudayone.com>, <paycayone.com>, <payda6one.com>, <payda7one.com>, <paydagone.com>, <paydahone.com>, <paydajone.com>, <paydauone.com>, <payday9ne.com>, <paydaykne.com>, <paydaylne.com>, <paydayne.com>, <paydayobe.com>, <paydayoen.com>, <paydayohe.com>, <paydayoje.com>, <paydayon3.com>, <paydayon4.com>, <paydayond.com>, <paydayonf.com>, <paydayonr.com>, <paydayons.com>, <paydayonw.com>, <paydqyone.com>, <paydsyone.com>, <paydwyone.com>, <paydxyone.com>, <paydyaone.com>, <paydzyone.com>, <payeayone.com>, <payfayone.com>, <payrayone.com>, <paysayone.com>, <payxayone.com>, <pqydayone.com>, <psydayone.com>, <pwydayone.com>, <pxydayone.com>, <pyadayone.com>, and <pzydayone.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC 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 February 23, 2010, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 15, 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@0aydayone.com, postmaster@apydayone.com, postmaster@laydayone.com, postmaster@oaydayone.com, postmaster@pa6dayone.com, postmaster@pa7dayone.com, postmaster@padyayone.com, postmaster@pagdayone.com, postmaster@pahdayone.com, postmaster@pajdayone.com, postmaster@paudayone.com, postmaster@paycayone.com, postmaster@payda6one.com, postmaster@payda7one.com, postmaster@paydagone.com, postmaster@paydahone.com, postmaster@paydajone.com, postmaster@paydauone.com, postmaster@payday9ne.com, postmaster@paydaykne.com, postmaster@paydaylne.com, postmaster@paydayne.com, postmaster@paydayobe.com, postmaster@paydayoen.com, postmaster@paydayohe.com, postmaster@paydayoje.com, postmaster@paydayon3.com, postmaster@paydayon4.com, postmaster@paydayond.com, postmaster@paydayonf.com, postmaster@paydayonr.com, postmaster@paydayons.com, postmaster@paydayonw.com, postmaster@paydqyone.com, postmaster@paydsyone.com, postmaster@paydwyone.com, postmaster@paydxyone.com, postmaster@paydyaone.com, postmaster@paydzyone.com, postmaster@payeayone.com, postmaster@payfayone.com, postmaster@payrayone.com, postmaster@paysayone.com, postmaster@payxayone.com, postmaster@pqydayone.com, postmaster@psydayone.com, postmaster@pwydayone.com, postmaster@pxydayone.com, postmaster@pyadayone.com, and postmaster@pzydayone.com  by e-mail.

 

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

 

On March 25, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <0aydayone.com>, <apydayone.com>, <laydayone.com>, <oaydayone.com>, <pa6dayone.com>, <pa7dayone.com>, <padyayone.com>, <pagdayone.com>, <pahdayone.com>, <pajdayone.com>, <paudayone.com>, <paycayone.com>, <payda6one.com>, <payda7one.com>, <paydagone.com>, <paydahone.com>, <paydajone.com>, <paydauone.com>, <payday9ne.com>, <paydaykne.com>, <paydaylne.com>, <paydayne.com>, <paydayobe.com>, <paydayoen.com>, <paydayohe.com>, <paydayoje.com>, <paydayon3.com>, <paydayon4.com>, <paydayond.com>, <paydayonf.com>, <paydayonr.com>, <paydayons.com>, <paydayonw.com>, <paydqyone.com>, <paydsyone.com>, <paydwyone.com>, <paydxyone.com>, <paydyaone.com>, <paydzyone.com>, <payeayone.com>, <payfayone.com>, <payrayone.com>, <paysayone.com>, <payxayone.com>, <pqydayone.com>, <psydayone.com>, <pwydayone.com>, <pxydayone.com>, <pyadayone.com>, and <pzydayone.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAYDAY ONE mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <0aydayone.com>, <apydayone.com>, <laydayone.com>, <oaydayone.com>, <pa6dayone.com>, <pa7dayone.com>, <padyayone.com>, <pagdayone.com>, <pahdayone.com>, <pajdayone.com>, <paudayone.com>, <paycayone.com>, <payda6one.com>, <payda7one.com>, <paydagone.com>, <paydahone.com>, <paydajone.com>, <paydauone.com>, <payday9ne.com>, <paydaykne.com>, <paydaylne.com>, <paydayne.com>, <paydayobe.com>, <paydayoen.com>, <paydayohe.com>, <paydayoje.com>, <paydayon3.com>, <paydayon4.com>, <paydayond.com>, <paydayonf.com>, <paydayonr.com>, <paydayons.com>, <paydayonw.com>, <paydqyone.com>, <paydsyone.com>, <paydwyone.com>, <paydxyone.com>, <paydyaone.com>, <paydzyone.com>, <payeayone.com>, <payfayone.com>, <payrayone.com>, <paysayone.com>, <payxayone.com>, <pqydayone.com>, <psydayone.com>, <pwydayone.com>, <pxydayone.com>, <pyadayone.com>, and <pzydayone.com> domain names.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <0aydayone.com>, <apydayone.com>, <laydayone.com>, <oaydayone.com>, <pa6dayone.com>, <pa7dayone.com>, <padyayone.com>, <pagdayone.com>, <pahdayone.com>, <pajdayone.com>, <paudayone.com>, <paycayone.com>, <payda6one.com>, <payda7one.com>, <paydagone.com>, <paydahone.com>, <paydajone.com>, <paydauone.com>, <payday9ne.com>, <paydaykne.com>, <paydaylne.com>, <paydayne.com>, <paydayobe.com>, <paydayoen.com>, <paydayohe.com>, <paydayoje.com>, <paydayon3.com>, <paydayon4.com>, <paydayond.com>, <paydayonf.com>, <paydayonr.com>, <paydayons.com>, <paydayonw.com>, <paydqyone.com>, <paydsyone.com>, <paydwyone.com>, <paydxyone.com>, <paydyaone.com>, <paydzyone.com>, <payeayone.com>, <payfayone.com>, <payrayone.com>, <paysayone.com>, <payxayone.com>, <pqydayone.com>, <psydayone.com>, <pwydayone.com>, <pxydayone.com>, <pyadayone.com>,  and <pzydayone.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, TC Loan Service, LLC, is a leading provider of payday loans both over the Internet and at retail locations.  Complainant owns trademark registrations for the PAYDAY ONE and related marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,674,459 issued January 14, 2003).

 

Respondent, Eyal Hay Moshe, registered the <0aydayone.com>, <apydayone.com>, <laydayone.com>, <oaydayone.com>, <pa6dayone.com>, <pa7dayone.com>, <padyayone.com>, <pagdayone.com>, <pahdayone.com>, <pajdayone.com>, <paudayone.com>, <paycayone.com>, <payda6one.com>, <payda7one.com>, <paydagone.com>, <paydahone.com>, <paydajone.com>, <paydauone.com>, <payday9ne.com>, <paydaykne.com>, <paydaylne.com>, <paydayne.com>, <paydayobe.com>, <paydayoen.com>, <paydayohe.com>, <paydayoje.com>, <paydayon3.com>, <paydayon4.com>, <paydayond.com>, <paydayonf.com>, <paydayonr.com>, <paydayons.com>, <paydayonw.com>, <paydqyone.com>, <paydsyone.com>, <paydwyone.com>, <paydxyone.com>, <paydyaone.com>, <paydzyone.com>, <payeayone.com>, <payfayone.com>, <payrayone.com>, <paysayone.com>, <payxayone.com>, <pqydayone.com>, <psydayone.com>, <pwydayone.com>, <pxydayone.com>, <pyadayone.com>,  and <pzydayone.com> domain names on June 22, 2009.  All of the disputed domain names resolve to one of three third-party websites competing 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

 

Complainant owns multiple trademarks for the PAYDAY ONE and related marks with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,674,459 issued January 14, 2003).  The Panel finds that a trademark registration with the USPTO is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the PAYDAY ONE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), even though Respondent is in a country other than that where the mark is registered.  See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).

 

Complainant argues that all of Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAYDAY ONE in one or more of the following ways: 

1)  the disputed domain name transposes letters in Complainant’s mark; 2) the disputed domain replaces a single letter in Complainant’s mark with a different letter or numeral;  3) the disputed domain name deletes the space between the words of Complainant’s mark; and 4) the disputed domain name adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  The Panel finds that transposing characters in the disputed domain names does not create distinct marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”); see also Delta Corporate Identity, Inc. v. SearchTerms, FA 590678 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2005) (concluding that the <dleta.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s DELTA mark).  Misspelling Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain names by replacing a single character in Complainant’s mark with a different character also fails to prevent confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also Intelius, Inc. v. Hyn, FA 703175 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 5, 2006) (finding the <intellus.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s INTELIUS mark because the domain name differed from the mark by one letter and was visually similar).  The deletion of the space between the words of Complainant’s mark and the addition of the gTLD “.com” are irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because spaces are irreproducible in domain names and gTLDs are required elements.  See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names.  Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”).  Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAYDAY ONE mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  Once Complainant puts forth a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate its rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  The Panel finds that Complainant has adequately established a prima facie case in these proceedings.  Since Respondent has failed to respond to the allegations against it, the Panel may assume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that “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 Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent’s failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”).  The Panel elects, however, to consider the evidence in record to determine whether Respondent has any rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.  The Panel finds that the WHOIS information for each of the disputed domain names identifies the registrant as “Eyal Hay Moshe,” which demonstrates that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.  Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and therefore lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also 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 respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent’s disputed domain names all resolve to one of three websites sponsored by third-parties that compete with Complainant’s business.  Respondent presumably profits from this use through the receipt of affiliate fees.  The Panel finds that using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to competing third-party websites 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).  DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”); see also Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services). 

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is capitalizing on common misspellings of Complainant’s mark or typographical errors easily made when entering Complainant’s mark in order to redirect Internet users who are seeking Complainant’s online presence.  The Panel finds this practice constitutes typosquatting, which is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The Panel finds that in this instance Respondent has registered fifty disputed domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.  Registration of such a large number of disputed domain names appropriating Complainant’s mark demonstrates a pattern of such behavior intended to prevent Complainant from effectively using its mark.  The Panel finds that this pattern of activity is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).  See Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assocs., FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names that infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks); see also Australian Stock Exch. v. Cmty. Internet (Australia) Pty Ltd, D2000-1384 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent registered multiple infringing domain names containing the trademarks or service marks of other widely known Australian businesses).   

 

Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to one of three third-party websites offering goods and services that compete with Complainant.  Such an activity clearly disrupts Complainant’s business because Internet users making an unintentional typographical error will be redirected to one of these competing pages and may become confused about Complainant’s affiliation with the sites.  Additionally, the Internet users may decide to investigate the services advertised on any of these other sites instead of continuing on to Complainant’s site, thus becoming potential customers lost for Complainant.  The Panel finds that this disruption of Complainant’s business and diversion of Complainant’s potential customers to competing sites shows bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names); see also 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)). 

 

Respondent’s use of domain names so similar in spelling to Complainant’s PAYDAY ONE mark is clearly intended to attract Complainant’s customers and to allow Respondent to benefit from the Internet users’ inadvertent typographical errors made when searching for Complainant.  As Respondent links the disputed domain names to third-party websites that compete with Complainant, Respondent presumably profits every time an Internet user unknowingly makes such a mistake and is redirected to one of the third-party sites, likely through affiliate fees.  Additionally, when Internet users find themselves on the third-party sites, they may be confused as to the association of that site with Complainant.  The Panel finds Respondent’s efforts to attract Complainant’s customers and profit from their subsequent diversion to sites unrelated to Complainant indicate bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“the Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”); see also Hancock Fabrics, Inc. v. Active Advantage, Inc., FA 204111 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s use of the <hancockfabric.com> domain name, a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s HANCOCK FABRICS mark, to redirect Internet traffic to a website that provides a selection of jokes demonstrates Respondent’ bad faith use of the disputed domain name because Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website, which evidences bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”)

 

The Panel has previously concluded that Respondent is engaged in the practice of typosquatting through the use of the confusingly similar disputed domain names.  The Panel finds this practice of typosquatting is evidence in and of itself of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form); see also Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy 4 ¶ (a)(iii)).

 

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

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <0aydayone.com>, <apydayone.com>, <laydayone.com>, <oaydayone.com>, <pa6dayone.com>, <pa7dayone.com>, <padyayone.com>, <pagdayone.com>, <pahdayone.com>, <pajdayone.com>, <paudayone.com>, <paycayone.com>, <payda6one.com>, <payda7one.com>, <paydagone.com>, <paydahone.com>, <paydajone.com>, <paydauone.com>, <payday9ne.com>, <paydaykne.com>, <paydaylne.com>, <paydayne.com>, <paydayobe.com>, <paydayoen.com>, <paydayohe.com>, <paydayoje.com>, <paydayon3.com>, <paydayon4.com>, <paydayond.com>, <paydayonf.com>, <paydayonr.com>, <paydayons.com>, <paydayonw.com>, <paydqyone.com>, <paydsyone.com>, <paydwyone.com>, <paydxyone.com>, <paydyaone.com>, <paydzyone.com>, <payeayone.com>, <payfayone.com>, <payrayone.com>, <paysayone.com>, <payxayone.com>, <pqydayone.com>, <psydayone.com>, <pwydayone.com>, <pxydayone.com>, <pyadayone.com>, and <pzydayone.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Louis E. Condon, Panelist

Dated:  April 8, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum