Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rampe Purda
Claim Number: FA1102001371596
Complainant is Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas of Troutman Sanders LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Rampe Purda (“Respondent”), Finland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <churchillinsuranceuk.com>, registered with HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM.
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 February 7, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 7, 2011. The Complaint was submitted in both Finnish and English.
On March 9, 2011, HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <churchillinsuranceuk.com> domain name is registered with HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM has verified that Respondent is bound by the HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM 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 March 10, 2011, the Forum served the Finnish language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Finnish language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 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@churchillinsuranceuk.com. Also on March 10, 2011, the Finnish language 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 April 4, 2011, 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 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Finnish language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <churchillinsuranceuk.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHURCHILL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <churchillinsuranceuk.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <churchillinsuranceuk.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd., is an insurance company based in the United Kingdom. Complainant provides insurance services, including home insurance, car insurance, travel insurance, pet insurance, and motorcycle insurance. Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for its CHURCHILL mark, including with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) (Reg. No. 2042931 issued November 28, 1997) and the European Union Office for Harmonization of the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 822916 issued June 17, 1999).
Respondent, Rampe Purda, registered the disputed domain name on June 18, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a directory website with links to insurance products and services in competition with Complainant’s products and services.
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.
Complainant submits evidence of its trademark registrations for the CHURCHILL mark with trademark authorities such as the UKIPO (Reg. No. 2042931 issued November 28, 1997) and the European Union’s OHIM (Reg. No. 822916 issued June 17, 1999). The Panel finds that evidence of trademark registrations throughout the world is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the CHURCHILL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Fitz-James, FA 571918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2005) (finding from a preponderance of the evidence that the complainant had registered its mark with national trademark authorities, the Panel determined that “such registrations present a prima facie case of Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <churchillinsuranceuk.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHURCHILL mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and then adds the descriptive term “insurance,” the geographic identifier “uk,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that none of these three additions, either alone or in conjunction with one another, is sufficient to properly distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Kohler Co. v. Curley, FA 890812 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2007) (finding confusing similarity where <kohlerbaths.com>, the disputed domain name, contained the complainant’s mark in its entirety adding “the descriptive term ‘baths,’ which is an obvious allusion to complainant’s business.”); see also MFI UK Ltd. v. Jones, D2003-0102 (WIPO May 8, 2003) (finding the <mfiuk.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s MFI mark because the addition of the letters “UK” were merely a common designation for the United Kingdom); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Respondent’s <churchillinsuranceuk.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHURCHILL mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Based on the arguments made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case in support of its contentions and Respondent has failed to submit a Response to these proceedings. 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 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.”).
Complainant argues that there is no indication that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant further argues that the reverse appears to be true as Respondent registered the disputed domain name under the name “Rampe Purda,” which has no apparent relation to the disputed domain name. The Panel finds, upon examination of the record, that there is no evidence to counter Complainant’s arguments, and thus, that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a directory website that features links to Complainant’s competitors in the insurance industry. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to provide Internet users links to directly competing businesses is 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). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not using the <tesco-finance.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by maintaining a web page with misleading links to the complainant’s competitors in the financial services industry); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (holding that using an identical or confusingly similar domain name to earn click-through fees via sponsored links to a complainant’s competitors does not represent 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)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name for the purpose of displaying pay-per-click links to various third-party businesses, including those that compete with Complainant. The Panel finds that
where Respondent registered and is using the <fordgenuinepartsonline.com> domain name to feature links to Complainant’s competitors in the insurance industry, Respondent has demonstrated bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name to maintain a links directory to third-parties in competition with Complainant, for Respondent’s commercial gain, is additional evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent, through its registration and use of the <churchillinsuranceuk.com> domain name, has acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <churchillinsuranceuk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: April 5, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page