national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Anunet Pvt Ltd / Jyoti Mehta

Claim Number: FA1109001406441

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Gary Saposnik of Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, California, USA.  Respondent is Anunet Pvt Ltd / Jyoti Mehta (“Respondent”), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <metlifee.com>, registered with Bizcn.com, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically September 7, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment September 16, 2011.

 

On September 8, 2011, Bizcn.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <metlifee.com> domain name is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Bizcn.com, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Bizcn.com, Inc. registration agreement and thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On September 19, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 11, 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@metlifee.com.  Also on September 19, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 October 14, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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.    The domain name that Respondent registered, <metlifee.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark.

 

2.    Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <metlifee.com> domain name.

 

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

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its METLIFE mark (Reg. No. 1,541,862 registered May 30, 1989).  Complainant uses its METLIFE mark in connection with insurance, annuities, pension fund, non-medical health, property, and casualty insurance, and savings and retirement products and services for individuals.

 

Respondent, Anunet Pvt Ltd / Jyoti Mehta, registered the <metlifee.com> domain name September 9, 2004.  The disputed domain name resolves to the website resolving from the <metropolitanlifeinsurancecompany.com> domain name.  The resolving website contains various hyperlinks to Complainant and Complainant’s competitors in the insurance industry.

 

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."

 

Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 to 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 to and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant alleges that it established rights in its METLIFE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). A trademark registration with a national trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark.  See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002), and Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007).  A complainant need only hold a trademark registration with a national trademark authority and is not required to hold a trademark within the country the respondent resides or operates.  See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001), and Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007). Complainant provides evidence of i the panels in Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007), and Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003), concluded the addition ts trademark registration with the USPTO for its METLIFE mark (Reg. No. 1,541,862 registered May 30, 1989).  The USPTO is a national trademark authority.  While Responded resides in India, based on UDRP precedent, the Panel finds that Complainant established rights in its METLIFE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant claims that the <metlifee.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark. Addition of a letter to a complainant’s mark is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Ikhizamah, D2002-1168 (WIPO Mar. 17, 2003), and Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000). Similarly, addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because all domain names require some type of top-level domain. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007), and Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003). Respondent’s <metlifee.com> domain name contains Complainant’s METLIFE mark and the only alterations in the domain name are the additions of the letter “e” and the gTLD “.com.” 

 

Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <metlifee.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i); Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights to or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant alleged that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in  the <metlifee.com> domain name.  Once Complainant makes a prima facie case to supports its allegations, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it has such rights or interests.  See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006). Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the Panel finds that Complainant made a prima facie case.  In Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000), the panel held that a respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint allows the Panel to infer that a respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.  However, this Panel still examines the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under a Policy ¶ 4(c) analysis.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <metlifee.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  In St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007), and Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006), the panels found that a respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain when the WHOIS information is not similar to the disputed domain name and no evidence in the record indicated that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name.  The WHOIS information identifies the domain name registrant as “Anunet Pvt Ltd / Jyoti Mehta.”  Respondent has not responded to this case and has not presented any evidence that it is commonly known by the <metlifee.com> domain name.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <metlifee.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant also urges that Respondent is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <metlifee.com> domain name.  In ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007), and Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007), the panels held that a respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website containing competing hyperlinks.  Respondent’s <metlifee.com> domain name resolves to the <metropolitanlifeinsurancecompany.com> website that features hyperlinks to Complainant and Complainant’s competitors in the insurance industry.  The Panel finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <metlifee.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant claims that Respondent registered and uses the <metlifee.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because Respondent has registered other domain names that contain third-party trademarks.  Although a pattern of abusive registrations using the mark of another may establish bad faith, those other domain names are not a part of this dispute and no determination is being made about their validity under the UDRP in this case. For that reason, this Panel does not find bad faith registration and use under a Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) evaluation.

 

However, while Complainant does not allege that Respondent registered and uses the <metlifee.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), in Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007), and Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007), the panels determined that the respondent registered and used a disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) when the disputed domain name resolved to a website hosting competing hyperlinks.  As noted previously, Respondent’s <metlifee.com> domain name resolves to a website that hosts hyperlinks to Complainant and Complainant’s competitors.  Consequently, this Panel holds that Respondent registered and uses the <metlifee.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

 

Complainant also contends that Respondent registered and uses the <metlifee.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  In AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000), and Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003), the panels found evidence of bad faith registration and use when the respondent used the disputed domain name to host competing hyperlinks and profit from click-through fees.  Complainant claims, and the Panel is permitted to presume in such circumstances, that Respondent receives click-through fees from the aforementioned hyperlinks found on the resolving website.  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the <metlifee.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <metlifee.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist

Dated: October 26, 2011. 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page