Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Metlife Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. c/o Ramesh
Claim Number: FA1005001326886
Complainant is Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Jeffrey E. Francis of Sullivan & Worcester LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <metlifehyd.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
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 May 26, 2010.
On May 28, 2010, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <metlifehyd.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 verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com 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 June 15, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 6, 2010, by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, via-email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@metlifehyd.com. Also on June 15, 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 July 12, 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 (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 in this proceeding:
1. The domain name that Respondent registered, <metlifehyd.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <metlifehyd.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <metlifehyd.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is a provider of insurance, annuities, pension funds, non-medical health and property insurance, casualty insurance, savings and retirement products, residential and commercial mortgages, lending, and real estate brokerage and management services for individuals, small businesses, and large institutions. Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for the METLIFE and related marks, including those that follow with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and those that follow with the Indian Intellectual Property Office (“IIPO”):
USPTO
METLIFE AAA Reg. No. 1,415,273 issued Oct. 28, 1986;
METLIFE Reg. No. 1,541,862 issued May 30, 1989;
METLIFE BANK Reg. No. 2,599,438 issued July 23, 2002;
METLIFE INVESTORS Reg. No. 2,675,650 issued Jan. 14, 2003;
METLIFE EDELIVERY Reg. No. 2,773,671 issued Oct. 14, 2003;
METLIFE FINANCIAL SERVICES Reg. No. 2,791,583 issued Dec. 9, 2003;
METLIFE ADVICE Reg. No. 2,811,849 issued Feb. 3, 2004;
METLIFE BANK Reg. No. 2,814,241 issued Feb. 10, 2004; and
METLIFE EXECUTIVECARE Reg. No. 3,017,972 issued Nov. 22, 2005.
IIPO
METLIFE Reg. No. 627,936 issued May 13, 1994 and
MET Reg. No. 1,354,879 issued May 3, 2005.
Respondent registered the <metlifehyd.com> domain name October 5, 2005. The disputed domain name resolves to the website of a company identifying itself as “MetLife Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,” which deals in “Turnkey Corporate Interiors and Modular Office Furniture.”
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 as 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 owns multiple trademark registrations for the METLIFE and related marks, including with the USPTO and the IIPO:
USPTO
METLIFE AAA Reg. No. 1,415,273 issued Oct. 28, 1986;
METLIFE Reg. No. 1,541,862 issued May 30, 1989;
METLIFE BANK Reg. No. 2,599,438 issued July 23, 2002;
METLIFE INVESTORS Reg. No. 2,675,650 issued Jan. 14, 2003;
METLIFE EDELIVERY Reg. No. 2,773,671 issued Oct. 14, 2003;
METLIFE FINANCIAL SERVICES Reg. No. 2,791,583 issued Dec. 9, 2003;
METLIFE ADVICE Reg. No. 2,811,849 issued Feb. 3, 2004;
METLIFE BANK Reg. No. 2,814,241 issued Feb. 10, 2004; and
METLIFE EXECUTIVECARE Reg. No. 3,017,972 issued Nov. 22, 2005.
IIPO
METLIFE Reg. No. 627,936 issued May 13, 1994 and
MET Reg. No. 1,354,879 issued May 3, 2005.
The Panel finds that Complainant registered its mark both with the federal trademark authority of the United States and with the trademark authority of India, where Respondent and Complainant both do business, and by doing so, Complainant established its rights in the METLIFE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also 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).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <metlifehyd.com> mark is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark inasmuch as Respondent has combined
Complainant’s mark with the letters “hyd” (presumably an abbreviation for the
Indian city
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s <metlifehyd.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case showing that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) analysis. After Complainant makes an adequate prima facie case, such as the one presented here, the burden of proof to show such rights shifts to Respondent. In this case, Respondent failed to meet this burden because it offered no evidence to counter Complainant’s allegations and proof. The Panel finds that because Respondent did not challenge Complainant’s allegations, the Panel may take Complainant’s allegations and proof as being true. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”).
However, in an effort to make a complete determination on the issue, this Panel also considers the evidence presented in light of the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors before making a final determination as to whether the evidence suggests that Respondent may have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The WHOIS information for the <metlifehyd.com> domain name lists the registrant as “Metlife Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.” Despite this WHOIS information, however, nothing else in the record, other than the company name listed at the disputed domain name, suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Complainant maintains that it has no relationship with Respondent and that it has not given Respondent any license, permission, or authorization to use its METLIFE mark in any way. As a result, the Panel finds that the WHOIS information is not sufficient to establish that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds, therefore, that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to a Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) analysis. See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Dough, FA 245971 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (finding that although “the WHOIS information for the <yasexhoo.com> domain name states that the registrant is YASEXHOO . . . this alone is insufficient to show that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name”).
Respondent’s <metlifehyd.com> domain name redirects to what appears to be the home page of a company called “MetLife Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.” The webpage advertises “Turnkey Corporate Interiors and Modular Office Furniture.” In addition to including Complainant’s METLIFE mark on the website, Respondent also features Complainant’s distinctive 4M logo. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website completely unrelated to Complainant but featuring Complainant’s mark and logo cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) analysis. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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 Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s commercial use of a confusingly similar domain name suggests that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <metlifehyd.com> domain name resolves to a webpage that appears to be the commercial webpage of a company called “MetLife Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.” The website displays photographs of the company’s office furniture products and describes its available services, infrastructure, and clientele, among others things. While the website is completely unrelated to Complainant or Complainant’s products and services, the website displays both Complainant’s METLIFE mark and its 4M logo prominently in the main banner of the page. Complainant argues that Respondent is using Complainant’s METLIFE mark in the disputed domain name in order to attract Internet users to Respondent’s own webpage for profit. Complainant further asserts that Respondent displays Complainant’s mark and logo on the resolving website in order to confuse Internet users and to cause them to believe that some association exists between Complainant and Respondent. The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempts to use Complainant’s mark to attract and mislead Internet users for Respondent’s own commercial gain permits findings of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (“By use of <yahgo.com> to operate its search engine, a name that infringes upon Complainant’s mark, Respondent is found to have created circumstances indicating that Respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or of a product or service on the website as proscribed in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the
disputed domain name in bad faith; 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 <metlifehyd.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: July 26, 2010.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum