Anheuser - Busch, Incorporated v. Web House
Claim Number: FA1101001368301
Complainant is Anheuser - Busch, Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Paul D. McGrady of Greenberg Traurig, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Web House (“Respondent”), represented by Jim Dougherty, Georgia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <budweisertickets.com>, registered with DOTSTER.
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.
Roberto A. Bianchi as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 19, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 20, 2011.
On January 19, 2011, DOTSTER confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <budweisertickets.com> domain name is registered with DOTSTER and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DOTSTER has verified that Respondent is bound by the DOTSTER 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 January 21, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 2011 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@budweisertickets.com. Also on January 21, 2011, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 24, 2011.
On January 26, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Roberto A. Bianchi as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
In its Complaint, Complainant contends as follows:
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BUDWEISER marks in which Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s marks in their entirety, with only the addition of the general noun “tickets.” Past panels have found that such minor alterations do nothing to distinguish a domain name from a mark.
- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has no trademark or other intellectual property rights to the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known as “budweisertickets.com.” Respondent has no trademark applications or registrations known to Complainant that incorporate the element “budweisertickets.” Respondent’s use of the BUDWEISER marks is unauthorized. Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the disputed domain name, and is not making a protected non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to a commercial website promoting his ticket sales business. Complainant has not granted Respondent any license, permission, or authorization by which it could own or use any domain name registrations that are confusingly similar to any of Complainant’s marks.
- The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Since Respondent had an address within the United States at the time of the initial filing of the Complainant, Respondent has at least constructive notice of Complainant’s rights to its BUDWEISER marks. Knowledge of such rights at the time of domain name registration is evidence of bad faith. The mere fact that the Respondent has registered a domain that incorporates the globally famous trademark of a well-known manufacturer is alone sufficient to give rise to an inference of bad faith. Even if Respondent argues that he was somehow unaware of Complainant’s rights in the relevant marks, had Respondent conducted even a preliminary trademark search for the countries in which he registered the domain name or directed the traffic for the content associated with the domain name, he would have found Complainant’s various trademark registrations in Complainant’s marks and the websites associated with the marks, and numerous additional references in commerce, on the Internet, and in publications, evidencing Complainant’s use of its marks in connection with the Complainant’s goods and services.
- The disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. Through the commercial use of the disputed domain name in the United States and other jurisdictions in which the Complainant has trademark rights in its BUDWEISER marks, Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s web site for financial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s BUDWEISER marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and/or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location through using the disputed domain name in a redirection scheme. Such redirection schemes qualify as evidence of bad faith registration and use. Respondent’s conduct is squarely within the illustrations of bad faith set forth in Policy ¶ (4)(b). The above activities constitute bad faith and unfair attempts to capitalize on the fame and reputation for superior quality associated with the BUDWEISER marks in order to generate a windfall at the expense of Complainant through free riding on the BUDWEISER marks.
B. Respondent
In its Response, Respondent requests that the Panel forgo the usual UDRP analysis of the three issues set out in the Complaint and make an order for the transfer of the domain name to Complainant.
In the present case, there is basic coincidence between the remedy requested by Complainant and the unilateral consent to transfer stipulated by Respondent. Accordingly, transfer should be granted.
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."
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.
Considering that Respondent has stated its unconditional consent to the remedy of transfer requested by Complainant, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <budweisertickets.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Roberto A. Bianchi, Panelist
Dated: February 8, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page