AOL Inc. v. Salvia Corporation and Genadijs Vasiljevs a/k/a SIA Bouns
Claim Number: FA1004001316861
Complainant is AOL
Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James
R. Davis, of Arent Fox LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com>, registered with Dotregistrar.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 1, 2010.
On April 1, 2010, Dotregistrar confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names are registered with Dotregistrar and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dotregistrar has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotregistrar 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 April 2, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 22, 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@aolde.com, postmaster@hicq.com, postmaster@winmap.com, postmaster@win-map.com, postmaster@777-film.com, and postmaster@mapuest.com. Also on April 2, 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 April 27, 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 "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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <aolde.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL.COM mark.
Respondent’s <hicq.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ICQ mark.
Respondent’s <winmap.com> and <win-map.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WINAMP mark
Respondent’s <777-film.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s 777FILM.COM mark.
Respondent’s <mapuest.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MAPQUEST mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, AOL Inc., provides computer, entertainment, and online services. Complainant offers its wide variety of services under its WINAMP, ICQ, MAPQUEST, AOL.COM, and 777FILM.COM marks. Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its AOL.COM (e.g., Reg. No. 2,325,291 issued March 7, 2000), ICQ (e.g., Reg. No. 2,411,657 issued December 12, 2000), WINAMP (e.g., Reg. No. 2,557,585 issued April 2002), 777FILM.COM (e.g., Reg. No. 2,373,088 issued August 1, 2000), and MAPQUEST marks (e.g., Reg. No. 2,129,378 issued January 13, 1998).
Respondent registered the <winmap.com> and <win-map.com> domain names no earlier than July 18, 1999. Respondent registered the <hicq.com> domain name on June 30, 1999, the <mapuest.com> domain name on March 28, 1999, the <aolde.com> domain name on April 2, 2005, and the <777-film.com> domain name March 28, 2002. All of the disputed domain names resolve to websites containing advertisements and hyperlinks to computer, entertainment, and online services that compete with Complainant’s services. Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant for $1,000 after Complainant contacted Respondent about the disputed domain names.
Respondent has been a respondent in multiple UDRP
proceedings in which disputed domain names have been transferred from
Respondent to the complainants of those cases.
See Louis Vuitton Malletier
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.
Preliminary Issue:
Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are controlled by a singly entity. Complainant has provided previous UDRP decisions in which Respondent has conceded that Salvia Corporation and SIA Bouns are one, single entity. See Audi Visual Serv. Co. v. SOA Netex Galaxy, FA 713767 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 27, 2006); see also Caixa Dr. Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona v. Salvia Co., D2006-0504 (WIPO July 20, 2006). Complainant also alleges that in its negotiations with Respondent that Respondent offered to sell all of the disputed domain names and did not assert that some of the domain names were controlled by a separate entity. Complainant further asserts similarities in the contact information for each of the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are controlled by a single entity.
Previous panels have found that a trademark registration
with a federal trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v.
Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that
the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were
registered with a trademark authority); see
also Metro. Life
Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA
873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately
demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); 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 holds a trademark registration
with the USPTO for its AOL.COM (e.g., Reg. No. 2,325,291 issued March 7,
2000), ICQ (e.g., Reg. No. 2,411,657 issued December 12, 2000), WINAMP (e.g., Reg. No. 2,557,585 issued April
2002), 777FILM.COM (e.g., Reg. No. 2,373,088 issued August 1,
2000), and MAPQUEST marks (e.g., Reg. No. 2,129,378 issued January 13,
1998). Past panels have further held
that the effective date of a complainant’s rights in a mark is the filing date
of the issued trademark registration. See Hershey
Complainant claims that Respondent’s <aolde.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL.COM mark. The disputed domain name simply adds the letters “d” and “e” to Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds the addition of letters to Complainant’s mark fails to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s AOL.COM mark. See Kelson Physician Partners, Inc. v. Mason, CPR003 (CPR 2000) (finding that <kelsonmd.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s federally registered service mark, KELSON); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Amigos On Line RJ, FA 115041 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 28, 2002) (finding that the <aolrj.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark because “…the addition of a string of indiscriminate letters to a famous mark in a second level domain does not differentiate the domain name from the mark.”). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <aolde.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <hicq.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ICQ mark. Complainant contends that Respondent adds the letter “h” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s ICQ mark to create the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the additions of a letter and a gTLD are insufficient to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that <oicq.net> and <oicq.com> are confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, ICQ); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). Thus, the Panel determines that Respondent’s <hicq.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ICQ mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <winmap.com> and <win-map.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WINAMP mark. According to Complainant, the <winmap.com> and <win-map.com> domain names transpose the letters “a” and “m” in Complainant’s mark. Complainant claims that the <win-map.com> domain name also includes a hyphen. Both disputed domain names add the gTLD “.com” to Complainant’s mark. Previous panels have held that the transposing of letters, the addition of a hyphen, and the addition of a gTLD all fail to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s WINAMP mark. 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 Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Apr. 12, 2007) (finding that the addition of a hyphen between terms of a registered mark did not differentiate the <p-zero.org> domain name from the P ZERO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent’s <winmap.com> and <win-map.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WINAMP mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <777-film.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s 777FILM.COM mark. The disputed domain name simply adds a hyphen to Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that addition of a hyphen does not adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Teradyne, Inc. v. 4Tel Tech., D2000-0026 (WIPO May 9, 2000) (finding that the “addition of a hyphen to the registered mark is an insubstantial change. Both the mark and the domain name would be pronounced in the identical fashion, by eliminating the hyphen"). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <777-film.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s 777FILM.COM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <mapuest.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MAPQUEST mark. Complainant contends that Respondent’s disputed domain name contains a common misspelling of Complainant’s mark by removing the letter “q.” Complainant further claims the disputed domain name adds the gTLD “.com” to Complainant’s mark. Previous panels have concluded that the removal of a letter and the addition of a gTLD are insufficient to adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Pfizer Inc. v. BargainName.com, D2005-0299 (WIPO Apr. 28, 2005) (holding that the <pfzer.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s PFIZER mark, as the respondent simply omitted the letter “i”); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). As a result, the Panel determines that Respondent’s <mapuest.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MAPQUEST mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names. Previous panels have found that when a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c). 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 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); see also Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because the respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed. In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”).
Complainant claims that Respondent is not commonly known by the <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not licensed to use Complainant’s AOL.COM, ICQ, WINAMP, 77FILM.COM, or MAPQUEST marks. Complainant further alleges that Respondent is not associated with Complainant. The WHOIS information does not indicate any similarity between the domain name registrant and the disputed domain names. Respondent has failed to present any evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. For these reasons, the Panel determines that Respondent is not commonly known by the <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 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).
Respondent uses the <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names to resolve to websites that feature advertisements of and hyperlinks to third-parties that offer computer, entertainment, and online services that compete with Complainant’s services. Complainant alleges that Respondent receives click-through fees from the hyperlinks and advertisements. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is not a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate or noncommercial use of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel services that competed with the complainant was not 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)).
Complainant sent a letter to Respondent objecting to Respondent’s registrations of the disputed domain names. Subsequent negotiations between Respondent and Complainant about Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names lead to Respondent offering to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant for $1,000. Complainant contends that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name for more than Respondent’s assumed out-of-pocket costs is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. Hyun-Jun Shin, FA 154098 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (holding that under the circumstances, the respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose of its rights in the disputed domain name suggested that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).
Complainant alleges that the <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>,
<win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com>
domain names are typosquatted versions of Complainant’s AOL, ICQ, WINAMP,
777FILM.COM, and MAPQUEST marks.
Complainant claims that all of the disputed domain names incorporate
common misspellings of Complainant’s marks by adding, removing, or transposing
letters and adding a hyphen. The Panel
finds that Respondent’s use of common misspellings of Complainant’s marks does
constitute typosquatting and provides further evidence that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii). See Microsoft
Corp. v. Domain Registration
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent offered to sell the <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names to Complainant for $1,000. The Panel assumes this amount is greater than Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs. Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain names after Complainant contacted Respondent about the registration of the disputed domain names. The Panel finds Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain names for more than Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Moynahan v. Fantastic Sites, Inc., D2000-1083 (WIPO Oct. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to the complainant for $10,000 when the respondent was contacted by the complainant); see also Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman, AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith when he requested monetary compensation beyond out-of-pocket costs in exchange for the registered domain name).
Complainant claims that Respondent’s use of the <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>,
<win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com>
domain names is a part of a pattern of bad faith use and registration. Respondent has been a respondent in multiple
UDRP proceedings in which disputed domain names have been transferred from
Respondent to the complainants of those cases.
See Louis Vuitton Malletier
Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites that all feature advertisements for and hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors in the computer, entertainment, and online services industry. Internet users interested in Complainant’s services may instead utilize the services of one of Complainant’s competitors as a result of Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names. Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names disrupts Complainant’s computer, entertainment, and online services business, which 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 St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant alleges, and the Panel infers, that Respondent
profits through its use of the <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>,
<777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names
from the receipt of click-through fees.
Respondent attempts to profit from Internet users searching for
Complainant that become confused as to Complainant’s sponsorship of or
affiliation with the disputed domain names.
Consequently, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s use of the disputed
domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used
the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was commercially gaining from
the likelihood of confusion between the complainant’s AIM mark and the
competing instant messaging products and services advertised on the
respondent’s website which resolved from the disputed domain name); see also Asbury Auto. Group,
Inc. v.
Furthermore, Respondent’s use of the disputed domains constitutes typosquatting. Respondent’s <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names are common misspellings of Complainant’s AOL.COM, ICQ, WINAMP, 777FILM.COM, and MAPQUEST marks. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the common misspellings of Complainant’s mark constitutes typosquatting and provides further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Canadian Tire Corp. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because the respondent “created ‘a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location’. . . through Respondent’s persistent practice of ‘typosquatting’”); see also 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).
The Panel finds 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 <aolde.com>, <hicq.com>, <winmap.com>, <win-map.com>, <777-film.com>, and <mapuest.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 3, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum