The Finish Line, Inc. v. Domain Name
Claim Number: FA1005001322635
Complainant is The Finish Line, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk,
Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <finishlline.com>, registered with DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM.
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 3, 2010.
On May 14, 2010, DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <finishlline.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 May 17, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 7, 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@finishlline.com. Also on May 17, 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 June 10, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (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" 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 <finishlline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FINISH LINE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <finishlline.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <finishlline.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, The Finish Line, Inc., is a national retailer offering athletic footwear, apparel, and accessories with over 700 stores in 47 states. Complainant reported $256.9 million in net sales for their third quarter in 2008. Complainant also holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the FINISH LINE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,772,105 registered on May 18, 1993).
Respondent registered the <finishlline.com> domain name on February 1, 2003. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website.
Complainant
offers evidence that Respondent has a history of registering domain names that
infringe upon the trademark rights of others and has been ordered by previous
UDRP panels to transfer the disputed domain names to the respective
complainants. See Hot Topic, Inc. v. c/o Domain Name,
FA 1303841 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2010); see
also Travelocity.com LP v. Domain Name, FA 1305135 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar.
24, 2010).
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.
Complainant asserts rights in the FINISH LINE mark through its registration of this mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,772,105 registered on May 18, 1993). The Panel finds this registration establishes Complainant’s rights in the FINISH LINE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of 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); see also Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world).
Complainant alleges Respondent’s <finishlline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its FINISH LINE mark. Complainant claims Respondent’s disputed domain name incorporates a common misspelling of Complainant’s mark. Respondent adds an extra letter “l” to the second word of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent also attaches the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds these slight alterations do not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. 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 Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); 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). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <finishlline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FINISH LINE mark.
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
According to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first show Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <finishlline.com> domain name. The burden then shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Prior panels have interpreted Respondent’s failure to submit a response as evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. 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 Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); 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.”). Although Respondent failed to submit a Response, the Panel will evaluate the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant claims it is not affiliated with Respondent in any way. Complainant also states that it has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark in a domain name. Furthermore, the WHOIS information lists “Domain Name” as the registrant of the <finishlline.com> domain name. Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names 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).
Complainant claims the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. Complainant provides screen shots showing that the <finishlline.com> domain name resolves to a blank website. The Panel finds Respondent’s failure to make active use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Flor-Jon Films, Inc. v. Larson, FA 94974 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 25, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s failure to develop the site demonstrates a lack of legitimate interest in the domain name); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Complainant contends Respondent’s use of the disputed domain
name constitutes typosquatting.
Respondent’s disputed domain name contains a common misspelling of “line,”
the second word in Complainant’s mark, by adding an extra letter “l”. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a
domain name that incorporates a common misspelling of Complainant’s FINISH LINE
mark is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
See Microsoft
Corp. v. Domain Registration
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues Respondent has engaged in serial cybersquatting. Respondent has been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings, wherein the disputed domain names were ordered to be transferred from Respondent to the respective complainants in those cases. See Hot Topic, Inc. v. c/o Domain Name, FA 1303841 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2010); see also Travelocity.com LP v. Domain Name, FA 1305135 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2010). The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use under the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Arai Helmet Am., Inc. v. Goldmark, D2004-1028 (WIPO Jan. 22, 2005 (finding that “Respondent has registered the disputed domain name, <aria.com>, to prevent Complainant from registering it” and taking notice of another Policy proceeding against the respondent to find that “this is part of a pattern of such registrations”); see also Westcoast Contempo Fashions Ltd. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 814312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been the subject of numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <finishlline.com> domain name diverts Internet users seeking Complainant’s products to Respondent’s website. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business and constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Disney Enters. Inc. v. Meyers, FA 697818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 26, 2006) (holding that the non-use of a disputed domain name for several years constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
As previously discussed, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting through its use of a common misspelling of the FINISH LINE mark in the <finishlline.com> domain name. The Panel finds this use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to 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 Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”).
Finally, Respondent’s <finishlline.com> domain name resolves to an inactive website. The Panel finds Respondent’s failure to make active use of the disputed domain name provides further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <finishlline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 15, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum