ESPN, Inc. v John Omeara
Claim Number: FA1108001401828
Complainant is ESPN, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by R. Holland Campbell of ESPN, Inc., Connecticut, USA. Respondent is John Omeara (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <espnhs.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 4, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 5, 2011.
On August 4, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <espnhs.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 August 5, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 25, 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@espnhs.com. Also on August 5, 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 August 29, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) 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 <espnhs.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ESPN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <espnhs.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <espnhs.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, ESPN, Inc., is a large global provider of sports television programming. Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its ESPN mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,345,096 registered June 25, 1985). Complainant uses the mark as its station name for broadcasting purposes.
Respondent, John Omeara, registered the disputed domain name on March 15, 2006. The disputed domain name resolves to a site offering links to third-party businesses unrelated to Complainant.
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 that it has established its rights in the ESPN mark by registering that mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,345,096 registered June 25, 1985). Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence in the form of trademark certificates, verifying that the mark is duly registered and that Complainant is the owner of the registrations. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the ESPN mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by registering that mark with the USPTO. See 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).”); see also Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO).
Complainant also contends that Respondent’s <espnhs.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its ESPN mark. The disputed domain name includes the entire mark while adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and the letters “hs.” The Panel finds that these changes do not sufficiently differentiate Respondent’s disputed domain name from Complainant’s ESPN mark, thereby making them confusingly similar under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tullo, FA 150811 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2003) (finding that the <3daol.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark because “…the addition of the prefix ‘3d’ does nothing to ‘distinguish’ Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s registered trademarks.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant has met its initial burden of proof by making a prima facie case indicating that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Because of this finding, the burden is shifted to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests 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.”). Respondent’s failure to file a Response in this matter allows the Panel to assume that it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). However, the Panel will still examine the record in its entirety and in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c) before making a determination regarding Respondent rights or legitimate interests relative to the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has offered no evidence to support a finding to the contrary. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “John Omeara.” Based upon the evidence on record, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant also argues that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent’s <espnhs.com> domain name resolves to a directory site offering links to third-parties. The links appear to resolve to companies unrelated to Complainant’s business. Respondent presumably receives a click-through fee for each Internet user diverted to the linked sites. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name for its own pecuniary benefit constituting bad faith registration and use. The disputed domain name resolves to directory site offering links to unrelated third-party businesses. Respondent presumably collects a click-through fee for each Internet user diverted from the landing page to one of the linked sites. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Ass’n of Junior Leagues Int’l Inc. v. This Domain Name My Be For Sale, FA 857581 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2007) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to maintain a pay-per-click site displaying links unrelated to the complainant and to generate click-through revenue suggested bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (holding that the respondent was taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <lilpunk.com> domain name and the complainant’s LIL PUNK mark by using the contested domain name to maintain a website with various links to third-party websites unrelated to Complainant, and that such use for the respondent’s own commercial gain demonstrated bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <espnhs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: September 6, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page