E-GOLD LTD. v. NetMoney Inc.
Claim Number: FA1010001349927
Complainant is E-GOLD LTD. ("Complainant"), represented by Susan E. Billheimer of Patton Boggs LLP, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is NetMoney Inc. ("Respondent"), Seychelles Islands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <e-gold.net>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 1, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 5, 2010.
On October 5, 2010, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <e-gold.net> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 7, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 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@e-gold.net. Also on October 7, 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 November 8, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 <e-gold.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s E-GOLD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <e-gold.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <e-gold.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, E-GOLD LTD., provides digital currency to account holders in connection with its international payment services business that was launched in 1996. Complainant owns trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its E-GOLD mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,215,173 issued December 29, 1998).
Respondent, NetMoney Inc., registered the <e-gold.net> domain name on November 20, 2000. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to Respondent’s gaming website located at <headortail.com>.
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 presented sufficient evidence of trademark registrations with the USPTO to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in its E-GOLD mark. 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 Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Hoffman, FA 874152 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 31, 2007) (finding that the complainant had sufficiently established rights in the SKUNK WORKS mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO). The Panel further finds that Complainant does not need to establish rights within the country of Respondent’s residence under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) where Complainant can establish rights in another jurisdiction. See 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 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).
Complainant contends that the <e-gold.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s E-GOLD mark because the domain name merely adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net” to its E-GOLD mark. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding that <mysticlake.net> is plainly identical to the complainant’s MYSTIC LAKE trademark and service mark); see also Katadyn N. Am. v. Black Mountain Stores, FA 520677 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (“[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.net” is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether a domain name is identical to a mark.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests in the <e-gold.net> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant is required to produce a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to display that it does possess rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (finding that if the complainant satisfies its prima facie burden, “then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”); see also 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). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <e-gold.net> domain name. Respondent has failed to respond to these proceedings, and as such the Panel finds that it may infer that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed 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 Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”). However, the Panel will analyze the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the <e-gold.net> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given permission to use Complainant’s E-GOLD mark in any way. The WHOIS information for the <e-gold.net> domain name identifies “NetMoney Inc.” as the registrant, and Respondent has not come forward with evidence indicating that it has been commonly known as the <e-gold.net> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. World Photo Video & Imaging Corp., FA 109031 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 13, 2002) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by <aolcamera.com> or <aolcameras.com> because the respondent was doing business as “Sunset Camera” and “World Photo Video & Imaging Corp.”); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
Complainant argues, and submits screen-shot evidence to show, that the <e-gold.net> domain name resolves to Respondent’s gaming website located at <headortail.com>. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s use of the identical domain name to send users to Respondent’s unrelated gaming website, presumably for commercial gain, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to resolve to Respondent’s unrelated gaming website 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). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also 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)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant has alleged that Respondent is using the identical <e-gold.net> domain name to redirect Internet users who are seeking Complainant’s official <e-gold.com> domain name to Respondent’s unrelated gaming website for commercial gain. Complainant argues that such use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users who are seeking Complainant’s online currency business to Respondent’s unrelated commercial gaming website is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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); see also Mars, Inc. v. Double Down Magazine, D2000-1644 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent linked the domain name <marssmusic.com>, which is identical to the complainant’s mark, to a gambling website).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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 <e-gold.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: November 16, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page