ADT Services AG and ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Robert Seketa
Claim Number: FA1110001410343
Complainant is ADT Services AG and ADT Security Services, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Robert Seketa (“Respondent”), Ohio, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <adthomesecuritysystems.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services LLC.
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 October 5, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 11, 2011.
On October 7, 2011, Moniker Online Services LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <adthomesecuritysystems.com> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services LLC 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 October 11, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 31, 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@adthomesecuritysystems.com. Also on October 11, 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 November 7, 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 <adthomesecuritysystems.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <adthomesecuritysystems.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <adthomesecuritysystems.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, ADT Services AG, is the owner of intellectual property rights for the ADT marks that it licenses to Complainant, ADT Security Services, Inc. Because of this relationship, both Complainants will be referred to as the singular, “Complainant,” in this decision. Complainant offers evidence that it owns numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for the ADT mark (e.g., Reg. No. 710,507 registered January 31, 1961), which it uses for its home security business, among other things.
Respondent, Robert Seketa, registered the <adthomesecuritysystems.com> domain name on January 10, 2007. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that features a search engine and various third-party links to competing home security services and products.
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 has submitted evidence to show that it owns a trademark registration with the USPTO for its ADT mark (e.g., Reg. No. 710,507 registered January 31, 1961). Previous panels in cases, such as Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007), and Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006), have determined that registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient for a complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights in a mark. Based upon this precedent and Complainant’s submissions, the Panel finds that Complainant has Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights in the ADT mark.
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent’s <adthomesecuritysystems.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADT mark. Complainant argues that the domain name contains its entire ADT mark while adding the descriptive terms “home,” “security,” and “systems,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that merely adding three descriptive terms to Complainant’s mark as well as the gTLD “.com” are not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that “Respondent does not by adding the common descriptive or generic terms ‘corp’, ‘corporation’ and ‘2000’ following ‘PGE’, create new or different marks in which it has rights or legitimate interests, nor does it alter the underlying [PG&E] mark held by Complainant”); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., D2000-0022 (WIPO Mar. 3, 2000) (finding that four domain names that added the descriptive words "fashion" or "cosmetics" after the trademark were confusingly similar to the trademark); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
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 <adthomesecuritysystems.com> domain name. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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.”); 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 Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any rights 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 <adthomesecuritysystems.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant argues that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <adthomesecuritysystems.com> domain name nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s ADT mark. The WHOIS information identifies “Robert Seketa” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, and there is no further evidence on record that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that, without evidence of Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also 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).
Complainant has submitted screen shot evidence to show that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that features a commercial search engine and third-party links to various competing websites. Complainant alleges that such websites offer home security services in competition with Complainant’s offerings of the same. Further, Complainant argues that Respondent’s website results in commercial gain for Respondent through its collection of click-through fees or other fees from the websites linked-to on its website. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name in question is not 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 Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not 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 ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. balata inc, FA 888649 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2007) (finding that “using the confusingly similar <viaggidea.com> domain name to operate a website that features links to various commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees….is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant has offered evidence which shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host a website featuring various third-party links to Complainant’s competitors in the home security business. The Panel finds that such use invariably results in a disruption of Complainant’s business as some Internet users will purchase goods and services from those businesses advertised on Respondent’s website rather than from Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names); see also 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)).
Complainant also contends that Respondent’s intention in registering the <adthomesecuritysystems.com> domain name was to benefit commercially. Complainant asserts that wayward Internet users who click on the links contained on Respondent’s website contribute to such commercial benefit by allowing Respondent to profit from click-through or affiliate fees. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host a website that contains numerous third-party links to competing companies is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names); see also Maricopa Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. College.com, LLC, FA 536190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2005) (“The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to a competing website. Because Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s PHOENIX COLLEGE mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, Respondent’s use of the <phoenixcollege.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
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 <adthomesecuritysystems.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: November 14, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page