Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. n/a and Ruslan Biletsky
Claim Number: FA1104001383599
Complainant is Verizon Trademark Services LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Patrick M. Flaherty of Verizon Trademark Services LLC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is n/a and Ruslan Biletsky (“Respondent”), Ukraine.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <verizontone.com>, registered with DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 14, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 14, 2011.
On April 14, 2011, DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <verizontone.com> domain name is registered with DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM has verified that Respondent is bound by the DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.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 April 15, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 5, 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@verizontone.com. Also on April 15, 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 10, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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:
A. Verizon and its VERIZON Marks
1. The Verizon Communications group of companies (the “Verizon Companies”), which include Verizon Wireless, are among the world’s leading providers of communications and entertainment products and services to residential, business, wholesale, and government wireline and wireless customers.
12. Verizon Communications is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange under the stock ticker symbol VZ. A Dow 30 company, Verizon Communications in 2010 generated annual consolidated operating revenues of more than $106.6 billion. The Verizon Companies employ a diverse workforce of more than 194,000 employees. Verizon Wireless owns and operations the nation’s largest wireless carrier, serving 101.1 million voice and data customers.
13. The Verizon Companies have offered and provided a full array of communications and entertainment products and services under the trademark and trade name VERIZON since 2000 throughout the United States and throughout the world.
14. The Verizon Companies own and operate one of the most expansive end-to-end global IP networks serving more than 2,700 cities in 159 countries worldwide and provide advanced IP, data, voice and wireless solutions to large business – 96% of the Fortune 1000 – and government customers.
15. The Verizon Companies provide numerous communications and entertainment products and services, including voice, broadband video and data, voice and data transport, enhanced and custom calling features, network access, directory assistance, private lines, public telephones, nationwide long distance services, customer premises equipment distribution, data solutions and systems integration, billing and collections, Internet access services and inventory management services, digital television, video on demand, online games, and other products and services.
16. The Verizon Companies’ main websites featuring information on many of the products and services of the Verizon Companies can be accessed via the domain name verizon.com, which has been used since at least as early as June 2000, verizonwireless.com, which has been used since at least as early as April 2000, and verizonbusiness.com, which has been used since at least as early as January 2006.
17. Verizon’s affiliates have spent many billions of dollars since 2000 to advertise and promote VERIZON-branded products and services in the United States and throughout the world. Indeed, numerous administrative panels throughout the European Union and United States have already recognized Verizon’s rights in the VERIZON Marks. See Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. Darlington Edu d/b/a Barmax Distribution, NAF Claim No. FA0611000830994 (Dec. 15, 2006) (transferring verizonfttp.com, verizonfttp.net, verizonsolutions.com, verizonsolutions.net, verizonsolutions.biz, and verizonsolutions.info domain names, among others to Verizon); Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. Paul Swider d/b/a OnClick, NAF Claim No. FA0603000670992 (May 18, 2006) (transferring verizonwireless.biz domain name to Verizon); Verizon Trademark Services, LLC v. NA a/k/a NA DomainDevelopments.com, NAF Claim No. FA0512000616307 (Feb. 1, 2006) (transferring verizoncenter.com to Verizon); Verizon Trademark Services LLC v Paul Martin, Nominet Case No. DRS 04940 (September 21, 2007) (transferring verizonwireless.co.uk to Verizon); Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. Van Groenendael Adviesgroep, WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0029 (September 18, 2008) (transferring verizon.nl to Verizon); Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. Venta c/o Leonard Bogucki, NAF Claim No. FA1005001326688 (June 30, 2010) (transferring verzonwireless.com to Verizon); Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. Pavel Panchuk, NAF Claim No. FA1005001326430 (June 30, 2010) (transferring wwwverizon.com to Verizon); Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. Dester Johnson, NAF Claim No. FA1005001326913 (July 6, 2010) (transferring verizonewireless.com to Verizon); Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. van phong dai dien ubgm ltd c/o Huong Quynh Nguyen, NAF Claim No. FA1005001326689 (July 9, 2010) (transferring verzon.com to Verizon); Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. Ali Aziz, WIPO Claim No. D2010-0833 (July 14, 2010) (transferring veizonwireless.com, verionwireless.com, verizoin.com, verizonswireless.com, verizonwieless.com, verizoon.com, veroizon.com, werizonwireless.com and wwwverisonwireless.com to Verizon); Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. CNR of Granby & Sharpe Street, WIPO Claim No. D2010-0863 (July 26, 2010) (transferring verion.com, verixonwireless.com and vwrizonwireless.com to Verizon); and Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. paulo c/o paulo kann, WIPO Claim No. D2010-0989 (August 9, 2010) (transferring myverison.com, myverixon.com, myverizo.com, myverzion.com, myverzon.com, varison.com, veirzon.net, verixzon.com, veriznon.net, verizoniwireless.com, verizonwirelee.com, verizonwirelesas.com, verizonwirerles.com, verizonwires.com, verizonwirteless.com, verizopn.net, versizon.net, vewrizon.net, virazon.com, vwrizon.com, vznwireless.com, wwwverizion.net and zerizonwireless.com to Verizon).
B. Verizon’s Trademark Holdings
18. The VERIZON Marks are inherently distinctive and commercially strong marks entitled to an extremely broad scope of protection. Furthermore, the VERIZON Marks have long enjoyed unquestionable fame as a result of favorable public acceptance and recognition.
19. As a coined trademark, the VERIZON trademark is inherently strong. Coined marks, such as VERIZON and KODAK, are considered the strongest trademarks and are accorded the highest degree of trademark protection.
20. In addition to registered rights in the VERIZON Marks, Verizon and the Verizon Companies have also established common law rights acquired through the substantial and continuous use and promotion of the VERIZON Marks by the Verizon Companies since at least as early as April 2000, and on Verizon’s trademark registrations identified below.
21. Verizon owns the following U.S. trademark registrations for its VERIZON Marks, among others:
a. U.S. Registration No. 2,886,813 for the mark VERIZON in block letters, filed September 10, 1999, first used April 4, 2000, issued September 21, 2004, covering goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, and 42.
b. U.S. Registration No. 2,879,802 for the mark VERIZON and design, filed March 3, 2000, first used April 4, 2000, issued August 31, 2004, covering goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, and 42.
c. U.S. Registration No. 2,884,027 for the mark VERIZON WIRELESS and Design, filed May 11, 2000, first used May 7, 2000, issued September 14, 2004, covering telecommunications services in International Class 38.
22. Verizon owns many Ukrainian trademark registrations for its VERIZON Marks, including the following examples:
a. VERIZON, Certificate No. 30659, filed March 7, 2000, issued April 15, 2003, covering goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, and 42.
b. VERIZON & Design, Certificate No. 30845, filed on October 13, 2000, issued April 15, 2003, covering goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, and 42
23. Verizon owns a family of VERIZON Marks. In addition to the registrations for the VERIZON Marks listed above, Verizon’s affiliates use and have registrations for other VERIZON-formative marks, including, for example, VERIZON AVENUE, VERIZON BUSINESS, VERIZON FIOS and VERIZON FREEDOM.
24. Verizon’s proprietary rights in the VERIZON Marks clearly predate Respondent’s registration of the Infringing Domain Name on October 24, 2010.
C. Respondent’s Infringing Activities and Bad Faith Acts.
25. Respondent registered the domain name verizontone.com on October 24, 2010 well after: (a) Verizon’s affiliates began using the VERIZON Marks in the United States, and elsewhere; (b) the effective date of Verizon’s registrations for its VERIZON Marks; and (c) the VERIZON Marks became famous.
GROUNDS FOR THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
A. The Infringing Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to the VERIZON Marks.
26. Through widespread and extensive use in connection with its products and services the VERIZON Marks have become uniquely associated with the Verizon Companies and their products and services, and are extremely well-known and famous throughout the United States, and the world.
27. The Infringing Domain Name is confusingly similar to the VERIZON Marks. The domain name verizontone.com includes the generic word “tone.” In addition, “tone” is not just any generic word, but a term commonly used in the telecommunications industry, for example “dial-tone,” “dual-tone,” “ringtone,” “ringback tone,” “touch-tone,” etc. Respondent has intentionally attempted to divert, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the VERIZON Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and endorsement of its website. The Infringing Domain Name is active and when typed into a URL browser the user is redirected to a pornographic website entitled “facebookofsex.com,” which displays pornographic material for commercial purposes. Furthermore, the addition of the word “tone” does not diminish the likelihood of confusion. Courts and administrative panels have recognized that consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name address composed of the organization’s name or mark. See also Dr. Michael Crichton v. Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No. D2002-0872, at § C (Nov. 25, 2002). This is especially true within the .com gTLD -- by far the most common top level domain.
28. Verizon is a world-class company that is committed to the highest ethical standards. Our Verizon roots have a long history of commitment to integrity and respect. The Respondent’s use of the Infringing Domain Name dilutes and tarnishes the VERIZON Marks and will cause harm and detriment to Verizon’s reputation and the VERIZON Marks.
29. As previous panels have found, the addition of a generic top-level domain name, such as “.com” or “.net,” is irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected mark. See, e.g., Aous Uweyda v. Abdallah Sheet, NAF Claim No. FA0306000165119 (Aug. 1, 2003); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. G.A.B. Enter., WIPO Case No. D2000-0416 (June 29, 2000).
B. Respondent Has No Legitimate Rights or Interests in the Infringing Domain Name.
30. Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the Infringing Domain Name. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Verizon, the Verizon Companies, or any of the many products and services provided by the Verizon Companies in association with the VERIZON Marks. On information and belief, Respondent has never sought or obtained any trademark registrations for “Verizon” or any variation thereof, and indeed could never do so given Verizon’s prior and exclusive rights to this mark throughout the world. Nor has Respondent received any license, authorization, or consent -- express or implied -- to use the VERIZON Marks in a domain name or in any other manner either at the time Respondent registered and began using the Infringing Domain Name, or at any other time.
31. As a preliminary matter, for a respondent to demonstrate legitimate rights or interests under Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, NAF panels have consistently held that the respondent “must show that he has been commonly known by the [name] prior to registration of the domain name.” NATSAC, Inc. v. Kistner, NAF Claim No. FA0805001190108 (June 28, 2008) (emphasis added) (citing RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, NAF Claim No. 96949 (May 16, 2001). Here, Respondent has not been commonly known by the name VERIZON.
32. Nor could Respondent demonstrate a legitimate right or interest in the domain name. It is axiomatic that “use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. . . . to conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation which is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.” NATSAC, NAF Claim No. FA0805001190108 (quoting Ciccone v. Parisi, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (Oct. 16, 2000)).
C. Respondent Has Registered and Is Using the Infringing Domain Name in Bad Faith.
33. Respondent initially registered and is continuing to use the Infringing Domain Name in bad faith by doing so knowing of Verizon’s preexisting rights in the VERIZON Marks. See Societe AIR FRANCE v. Geiser Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2008-0024 (Feb. 29, 2008) (“Registration of a domain name with knowledge of the trademark owner’s rights has been consistently found to constitute bad faith under the Policy.”). It is simply inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of Verizon’s rights in the VERIZON Marks, which, as noted above, have achieved fame throughout the world. See Bloomberg L.P. v. Boo Design Servs., NAF Claim No. FA0104000097043 (May 17, 2001) (stating that “unless living a monastic life, Respondent has been actually aware of Complainant’s registered trademark and service mark”).
34. Similarly, Respondent’s initial registration and subsequent use of the domain name demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. v. David Allen, NAF Claim No. FA0102000096667) (finding bad faith when respondent registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of complainant’s rights in its mark and used the domain name to offer related services). Numerous WIPO panels have previously found that when a disputed domain name associates a distinctive trademark with pornography, such use provides evidence of bad faith. See Ty Inc. v. O.Z. Names, Respondent, WIPO Case No. D2000-0370 (June 27, 2010); Barry Diller v. INTERNETCO CORP., WIPO Case No. D2000-1734 (March 9, 2001); AltaVista Company v. Alt Pile Co., WIPO Case No. D2002-0933 (December 18, 2002); and Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Seweryn Nowak, WIPO Case No. D2003-0022 (March 4, 2003).
35. Respondent is a known cybersquatter who has been specifically cited in a recent WIPO UDRP decision for bad faith use and registration of a domain name in connection with a pornographic website. See Wacoal America, Inc. v. PrivacyProtect.org / n/a Ruslan Biletsky, WIPO Case No. D2010-1574 (November 5, 2010).
36. Respondent must have expected that any use of the Infringing Domain Name would cause harm to Verizon. The Infringing Domain Name is so “obviously indicative” of Verizon and the domain name verizon.com that Respondent’s use of this domain name (wwwverizon.com) would “inevitably lead to confusion of some sort.” AT&T v. Rice, WIPO Case No. D2000-1276, at ¶6 (Nov. 25, 2000).
37. In addition to the traditional likelihood of confusion noted above, Respondent’s registration and use of the Infringing Domain Name also creates initial interest confusion, which attracts Internet users to Respondent’s website based on Respondent’s use of the VERIZON Marks. This is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Infringing Domain Name. See, e.g., Osuuspankkikeskus OSK v. Registerfly.com, WIPO Case No. D2006-0461 (June 13, 2006) (referencing initial interest confusion in the panel’s finding of bad faith registration and use); see also Jafra Cosmetics, S.A. de C.V. v. Jafraproducts Admin, WIPO Case No. D2006-0416 (May 18, 2006) (same).
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant Verizon Trademark Services, LLC is the trademark holding company for Verizon Wireless, a large provider of cellular telephone services. Complainant holds numerous registrations for the VERIZON mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,879,802 issued August 31, 2004). Complainant uses this mark to promote its parent company’s business functions.
Respondent Ruslan Biletsky registered the disputed domain name on October 24, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a site offering adult-oriented material and links to adult-oriented material. Respondent presumably receives revenue from the sales of adult-oriented services or click-through fees from the linked adult-oriented websites.
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 contends it has established rights in the VERIZON mark by registering that mark with a federal trademark authority, the USPTO. Previous panels have determined registering a mark with a federal trademark authority, and more specifically with the USPTO, confers to the registrant affirmative rights in said mark. 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 Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established its rights in the VERIZON mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i) by registering that mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,879,802 issued August 31, 2004).
Complainant also contends Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VERIZON mark. Respondent’s <verizontone.com> domain name includes the entire mark while only adding the generic term “tone” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds these changes fail to sufficiently differentiate Respondent’s disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark making the two confusingly similar under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Rana, FA 304696 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2004) (finding that the addition of the generic term “collection” to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark failed to distinguish the domain name from the mark); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) established.
The Panel finds Complainant has met its initial burden of proof by making a prima facie showing Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. After making a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests in the mark. See 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)). Respondent has failed to both rebut the prima facie case of Complainant and offer any kind of response. The Panel may assume Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Out of an abundance of caution, the Panel will still examine the entire record to make a determination regarding Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the <verizontone.com> domain name according to the factors listed in Policy ¶4(c).
Complainant claims Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has offered no evidence to support a finding it is commonly known by the <verizontone.com> domain name. The WHOIS information identifies registrant as “Ruslan Biletsky,” which the Panel finds is not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i). See 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.”); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
Complainant also claims Respondent is not engaging in a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate or noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent’s <verizontone.com> domain name resolves to a site offering adult-oriented materials and links to other adult-oriented websites. Previous panels have determined that this usage does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate or noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost In Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of its domain name to link unsuspecting Internet traffic to an adult orientated website, containing images of scantily clad women in provocative poses, did not constitute a connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use); see also Target Brands, Inc. v. Bealo Group S.A., FA 128684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 17, 2002) (finding that use of the <targetstore.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to an adult-oriented website did not equate to a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not engaging in a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate or noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(i) and Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) established.
Complainant alleges Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s <verizontone.com> domain name resolves to a site offering adult-oriented materials. Previous panels have determined that using a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to adult-oriented material constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Google Inc. v. Bassano, FA 232958 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <googlesex.info> domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv)); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Horner, D2002-0029 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2002) (holding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s mark to post adult-oriented photographs and to publicize hyperlinks to additional adult-oriented websites evidenced bad faith use and registration of the domain name). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <verizontone.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: May 12, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page