Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and
Claim Number: FA1008001339726
Complainant is Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <ashford.net>, registered with ONLINENIC, INC.
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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 6, 2010.
On August 10, 2010, ONLINENIC, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ashford.net> domain name is registered with ONLINENIC, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ONLINENIC, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the ONLINENIC, INC. 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 August 11, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 31, 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@ashford.net by e-mail. Also on August 11, 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 September 14, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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 <ashford.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ASHFORD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ashford.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <ashford.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. and
Complainant, The Tings DotCom Sdn Bhd and I H Ting, registered the <ashford.net> domain name on February 5, 2000. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parked website located at third-party <sedo.com>, where third-party hyperlinks to Complainant and Complainant’s competitors are displayed. The website resolving from the disputed domain name also displays, “This website is for sale!”
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 Complainants
There are two Complainants in this matter: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and
The Panel finds that Complainant has established right in its ASHFORD mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,230,906 filed January 2, 2005; issued April 17, 2007). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its ASHFORD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) dating back to the filing date of January 2, 2005. 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 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.”).
Complainant alleges that the <ashford.net> domain name is identical to its ASHFORD mark because the domain name simply adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net” to its mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Ohno, FA 511463 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2005) (holding that the <reebok.net> domain name was identical to the complainant’s REEBOK mark because it fully incorporates the mark and merely adds a generic top-level domain); see also Nike, Inc. v. Coleman, D2000-1120 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that the domain name <nike.net> is identical to the complainant’s famous NIKE mark).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any rights and legitimate interests in the <ashford.net> domain name. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once the Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden shifts to the Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 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.”). The Panel finds that the Complainant has produced a prima facie case. Due to the Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ashford.net> domain name. See 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.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond). However, the Panel will review the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complaint argues that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <ashford.net> domain name, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information identifies “The Tings DotCom Sdn Bhd and I H Ting” as the registrant of the <ashford.net> domain name, and there is no further evidence on record that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that without evidence of Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 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).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name redirects to the parked website of <sedo.com> and that the website resolving from the disputed domain name contains third-party links and advertisements to competing online universities and other educational institutions that include Complainant’s institution. Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, presumably for financial gain, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with 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). See Charles Letts & Co Ltd. v. Citipublications, FA 692150 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s parking of a domain name containing the complainant’s mark for the respondent’s commercial gain did not satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii)); 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)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant admits that it did not purchase its predecessor
until 2005 and then changed the name of the institution to
The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
James A. Carmody, Panelist
Dated: September 20, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum