IDEO LLC v. I-Deo Asia Limited
Claim Number: FA1103001377843
Complainant is IDEO LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Tsan Abrahamson of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is I-Deo Asia Limited (“Respondent”), Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <i-deo.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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 14, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 14, 2011.
On March 15, 2011, Dotster confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <i-deo.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 March 17, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 6, 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@i-deo.com. Also on March 17, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 12, 2011+, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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 <i-deo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s IDEO mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <i-deo.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <i-deo.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, IDEO LLC, is an international company specializing in management consultation, marketing research, and education and training in the fields of marketing and new business development, new product marketing, product and software design consulting, and business strategy. Complainant owns several trademark registrations worldwide for its IDEO mark, including those with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 2,329,001 issued march 14, 2000).
Respondent, I-Deo Asia Limited, registered the <i-deo.com> domain name on July 7, 2002. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to Respondent’s website where Respondent markets its identical 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to establish rights in its IDEO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), through its trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,329,001 issued march 14, 2000). See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)”); 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 alleges that the <i-deo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s IDEO mark. Complainant notes that Respondent merely added the hyphen to its mark as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Complainant argues that such additions to its distinctive mark are not sufficient for the domain name to be distinct from its mark. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) where Respondent merely added a hyphen and the gTLD “.com” to Complainant’s mark. See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); 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.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <i-deo.com> domain name. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Once the Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden shifts to Respondent to show they do have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See 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.”); see also Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. Due to the Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See 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); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Nonetheless, the Panel will continue to evaluate the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the <i-deo.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
The WHOIS information for the <i-deo.com> domain name identifies “I-Deo Asia Limited” as the registrant, and Respondent has not come forward with any evidence indicating that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that, although Respondent appears to be known by the disputed domain name, Respondent is not commonly known by the <i-deo.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”); see also AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2007) (finding that although the respondent listed itself as “AIM Profiles” in the WHOIS contact information, there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was actually commonly known by that domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to Respondent’s website where competing services are advertised. Complainant argues that such competing use under a confusingly similar domain name cannot establish rights in the domain name for Respondent. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to market its own goods that compete with Complainant 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 Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete
with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant argues that Respondent is attempting to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant’s services to competing services advertised through Respondent’s website. Complainant argues that such use is evidence that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The Panel finds that where Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to market and promote its competing services, that such use establishes Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website).
Further, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to profit from a version of Complainant’s mark in the domain name. Complainant argues that Respondent’s redirection of Internet users to its own website for profit is further evidence that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where Respondent is a competitor of Complainant, and is using the domain name to advertise such competing services. See Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. v. Clelland, FA 198018 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“Respondent used <land-cruiser.com> to advertise its business, which sold goods in competition with Complainant. This establishes bad faith as defined in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”).
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 <i-deo.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: April 12, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page