national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

NAMCO BANDAI Games Inc. v. Privacy Locked LLC / Privacy Locked

Claim Number: FA1104001381839

 

PARTIES

Complainant is NAMCO BANDAI Games Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brad R. Newberg of Reed Smith LLP, Virginia, USA.  Respondent is Privacy Locked LLC / Privacy Locked (“Respondent”), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <acecombat.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, 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.

 

James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 5, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 5, 2011.

 

On April 5, 2011, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <acecombat.com> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, 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 April 7, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 27, 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@acecombat.com.  Also on April 7, 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 May 2, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.    Respondent’s <acecombat.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ACECOMBAT mark.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <acecombat.com> domain name.

 

3.    Respondent registered and used the <acecombat.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant uses its ACECOMBAT mark in connection with video games and computer games, as well as for services related to video games and computer games.  Complainant began using its ACECOMBAT mark in 1995.  Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations with the Japan Patent Office (“JPO”) for its ACECOMBAT mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,312,629 issued May 23, 1997).

 

Respondent registered the <acecombat.com> domain name on April 8, 2002.  The disputed domain name resolves to a website containing hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors.

 

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 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations with the JPO for its ACECOMBAT mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,312,629 issued May 23,1997).  The Panel determines these registrations are sufficient to establish rights in the ACECOMBAT mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); 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 claims Respondent’s <acecombat.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ACECOMBAT mark.  The sole difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark is the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  Based on decisions by previous panels, the addition of a gTLD does not distinguish a domain name because a top-level domain is required in every domain name.  See Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v. Hodgson, D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name <gaygames.com> is identical to the complainant's registered trademark GAY GAMES); see also Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (“The Panel also finds that Respondent’s <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).  Therefore, the Panel decides that Respondent’s <acecombat.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ACECOMBAT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant claims that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <acecombat.com> domain name.  Previous panels have found that when a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  The Panel finds Complainant has made a prima facie case.  Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <acecombat.com> domain name.  However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).  See 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); see also Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because the respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed.  In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”).

 

Respondent has not presented any evidence that it is commonly known by the <acecombat.com> domain name, and the Panel fails to find any evidence in the record.  Complainant asserts that it has not authorized Respondent to use its ACECOMBAT mark.  The WHOIS information lists “Privacy Locked LLC / Privacy Locked” as the registrant of the <acecombat.com> domain name, which is not similar to the disputed domain name.  Consequently, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent’s <acecombat.com> domain name resolves to a website containing hyperlinks that resolve to the websites of Complainant’s competitors.  Respondent likely commercially profits from this use through the receipt of pay-per-click fees.  The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the <acecombat.com> domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (concluding that using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to competing websites 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)); 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent’s <acecombat.com> domain name resolves to a website containing hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors’ websites.  The Panel concludes that this constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use 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 David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business).

 

Respondent registered an identical domain name and uses it to resolve to a website where Respondent profits from pay-per-click fees.  As Respondent is attempting to profit by creating confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the <acecombat.com> domain name, the Panel concludes Respondent’s registration and use was, and is, in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant’s AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <acecombat.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist

Dated:  May 3, 2011

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page