BuySeasons, Inc. v. WEB MASTER INTERNET SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
Claim Number: FA1004001317175
Complainant is BuySeasons, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is WEB MASTER INTERNET SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <butcostumes.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 2, 2010.
On April 2, 2010, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <butcostumes.com> domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com 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 12, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 3, 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@butcostumes.com. Also on April 12, 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 May 7, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <butcostumes.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BUYCOSTUMES.COM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <butcostumes.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <butcostumes.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, BuySeasons, Inc.,
holds a trademark registration for its BUYCOSTUMES.COM mark with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,793,599 issued
December 16, 2003) in connection with costume and theatrical makeup, masquerade
costumes and masks, wigs and props.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 16, 2005. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s business.
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.
The Panel finds that
Complainant has established rights in the BUYCOSTUMES.COM mark under Policy ¶
4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO. See
Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s federal
trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were
adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25,
2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its
trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).
Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BUYCOSTUMES.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it merely replaces the letter “y” in Complainant’s mark with the letter “t” which is adjacent on the QWERTY keyboard. The Panel finds that the misspelling of Complainant’s mark by replacing a letter with one adjacent on the QWERTY keyboard creates a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark. See 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); see also The Royal Bank of Scotland Grp. plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (“The Panel finds that merely by misspelling Complainants’ mark, Respondent has not sufficiently differentiated the <privelage.com> domain name from the PRIVILEGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BUYCOSTUMES.COM mark.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has made 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 met its burden and
established a prima facie case in
support of its allegations. The Panel
infers that Respondent’s failure to submit a Response is further evidence that
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
names. See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.
4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its
allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights
or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also 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 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.”). Nevertheless, the Panel will examine the record
to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant further asserts that it has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register a domain name incorporating Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. With no evidence 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 Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s costume business. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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)); see also 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 that 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).”).
Complainant argues that Respondent is using a common misspelling of Complainant’s mark to intentionally redirect Internet users seeking Complainant’s goods and services to Respondent’s website, presumably for Respondent’s benefit. The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting, further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”); 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.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect
Internet users seeking Complainant’s goods and services to Respondent’s own
website featuring links to websites that directly compete with
Complainant. The Panel finds that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of
Complainant’s costume business pursuant to 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 Persohn
v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a
commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name intentionally links Internet users to third party websites that directly compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel infers that Respondent profits through the display of these commercial links via click-through fees. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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)); see also Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s practice of typosquatting is itself evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See K.R. USA, INC. v. SO SO DOMAINS, FA 180624 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <philadelphiaenquirer.com> and <tallahassedemocrat.com> domain names capitalized on the typographical error of Internet users seeking the complainant's THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER and TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT marks, evincing typosquatting and 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.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <butcostumes.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum