The Sports Authority Michigan, Inc. v.
Domhold Co., a/k/a D'Vaul L.
Claim Number: FA0211000135011
PARTIES
Complainant
is The Sports Authority Michigan, Inc.,
Ft. Lauderdale, FL (“Complainant”) represented by Robert S. Gurwin, of Rader,
Fishman & Grauer PLLC.
Respondent is Domhold Co., a/k/a D'Vaul L., Newark, NJ (“Respondent”).
The
domain names at issue are <sportsauthoriy.com>
and <thesportsauthoriy.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
PANEL
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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on November 26, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on November 26, 2002.
On
November 26, 2002, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
names <sportsauthoriy.com> and < thesportsauthoriy.com> are registered with Enom, Inc. and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is
bound by the Enom, 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
November 27, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of December 17, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the
Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all
entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical,
administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sportsauthoriy.com and
postmaster@thesportsauthoriy.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
January 2, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as
Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”)
finds that the 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.” Therefore, the Panel may
issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the
ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and
principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any
Response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
The
<sportsauthoriy.com>
and <thesportsauthoriy.com> domain names are confusingly similar
to Complainant's THE SPORTS AUTHORITY mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant is the largest national
full-line sporting goods retailer in the United States. Complainant operates 201 retail stores and a
full service e-commerce website located at <thesportsauthority.com>.
Complainant holds registered trademarks for THE SPORTS AUTHORITY with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (including Reg. Nos. 1,527,526 and
1,529,035). Complainant has used its
THE SPORTS AUTHORITY mark since 1987 in relation to its sports retail stores.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
names on May 27, 2002. Respondent is
using the disputed domain names in order to redirect Internet users to
Complainant’s website. Respondent is a
member of Complainant’s affiliate program and receives a commission for every
Internet user it redirects to Complainant’s website. Respondent does not have permission or a license from Complainant
to use Complainant’s THE SPORTS AUTHORITY mark.
DISCUSSION
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 the 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.
Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has
rights in the THE SPORTS AUTHORITY mark through continuous use and registration
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Respondent’s <sportsauthoriy.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE SPORTS AUTHORITY mark because
it merely omits the “the” and misspells “authority.” The omission of the word “the” does not add any distinctive
characteristics because Complainant’s mark is still the dominant feature of the
domain name. See Oki
Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“the fact
that a domain name incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient
to establish identical or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy
despite the addition of other words to such marks”). Furthermore, the misspelling of the word “authority” does not add
any distinguishing factors to the domain name because it merely takes advantage
of a common Internet user spelling error.
See 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
Complainant’s marks); see also Bama
Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding
that the domain names, <davemathewsband.com> and
<davemattewsband.com>, are common misspellings and therefore confusingly
similar).
Respondent’s <thesportsauthoriy.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE SPORTS AUTHORITY
mark because it merely misspells the word “authority.” The misspelling of a word within a domain
name does not create any distinct features capable of overcoming a claim of
confusing similarity because Complainant’s mark is still the dominant feature
of the domain name. Furthermore, the
omission of the “t” within “authority” takes advantage of a common Internet
user spelling error, and therefore creates no distinguishing features. See Compaq Info. Techs. Group, L.P. v. Seocho , FA 103879
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (finding that the domain name <compq.com> is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s COMPAQ mark because the omission of the letter “a” in the domain
name does not significantly change the overall impression of the mark); see also Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Powerclick,
Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the deliberate
introduction of errors or changes, such as the addition of a fourth “w” or the
omission of periods or other such generic typos do not change Respondent’s
infringement on a core trademark held by Complainant).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has failed to respond,
therefore it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests
in the disputed domain names. When
Complainant asserts a prima facie case against Respondent, the burden
shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See
Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding
that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in respect of the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide
credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000)
(finding that by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any
circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name).
Furthermore, because Respondent has not
submitted a Response, it is appropriate for the Panel to accept all reasonable
allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true. See Vertical
Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum
July 31, 2000) (failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in
the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw
adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint).
Respondent is using the disputed domain
names in order to divert Internet users to Complainant’s website. Respondent is a member of Complainant’s
affiliate program and is therefore making a profit from every Internet user it
redirects to Complainant’s website.
Respondent does not have permission from Complainant to use its mark for
this purpose. Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain names in order to redirect Internet users is not considered to
be 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 Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet,
FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding Respondent had no rights or
legitimate interests pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii) where it used the domain name <deluxeform.com> to
redirect users to Complainant’s <deluxeforms.com> domain name and to
receive a commission from Complainant through its affiliate program); see
also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding
that, because Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to
cause confusion with Complainant's website and marks, it's use of the names was
not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair
use).
There is no evidence on record, and
Respondent has not come forward with any proof, that it is commonly known as
THE SPORTS AUTHORIY, SPORTS AUTHORIY, <thesportsauthoriy.com>, or
<sportsauthoriy.com>.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also
Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp.,
FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate
interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name
or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent is using the disputed domain
names in order to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website. As a member of Complainant’s affiliate
program Respondent is making a profit from every Internet user it
redirects. Therefore, Respondent is
using confusingly similar domain names
in order to cause Internet user confusion for its own commercial gain. This type of behavior is evidence of bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Deluxe
Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding Respondent registered and used the
<deluxeform.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)
by redirecting its users to Complainant’s <deluxeforms.com> domain name,
thus receiving a commission from Complainant through its affiliate program); see
also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net,
FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain
name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks,
thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
Furthermore, based on the fact that
Respondent is a member of Complainant’s affiliate program it can be inferred
that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the THE SPORTS
AUTHORITY mark when it registered the disputed domain names. Registration of domain names that infringe
on Complainant’s rights, despite actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, is
evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of
bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s
trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Entrepreneur
Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that
"[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to
another, one can infer an intent to confuse").
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief
shall be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain names <thesportsauthoriy.com>
and <sportsauthoriy.com> be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: January 9, 2003
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page