Novartis AG v. Dealwave
Claim Number: FA1112001419767
Complainant is Novartis AG (“Complainant”), represented by Maury M. Tepper of Tepper & Eyster, PLLC, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Dealwave (“Respondent”), Maryland, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <myfreshlook.com>, registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 13, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 13, 2011.
On December 14, 2011, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <myfreshlook.com> domain name is registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. 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 December 14, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 3, 2012 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@myfreshlook.com. Also on December 14, 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 January 13, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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 <myfreshlook.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FRESHLOOK mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <myfreshlook.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <myfreshlook.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Novartis AG, discovers, develops, manufactures, and distributes products for vision care and eye health. Complainant owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for the FRESHLOOK (Reg. No. 2,888,957 July 6, 2004); FRESHLOOK COLORS (Reg. No. 2,888,959 registered September 28, 2004); and FRESHLOOK DIMENSIONS marks (Reg. No. 3,149,370 registered September 26, 2006), among others.
Respondent, Dealwave, registered the <myfreshlook.com> domain name on October 29, 2006. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website offering third-party links for “discount contact lens [sic]” that resolve to Complainant’s competitors.
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 owns several trademark registrations with the USPTO for the FRESHLOOK (Reg. No. 2,888,957 July 6, 2004); FRESHLOOK COLORS (Reg. No. 2,888,959 registered September 28, 2004); and FRESHLOOK DIMENSIONS marks (Reg. No. 3,149,370 registered September 26, 2006), among others. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 alleges that the <myfreshlook.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FRESHLOOK mark. Complainant notes that the domain name merely adds the generic term “my” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to its mark. The Panel finds that these minor additions to Complainant’s mark do not remove the domain name from the realm of confusing similarity as proposed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See NIIT Ltd. v. Parthasarathy Venkatram, D2000-0497 (WIPO Aug. 4, 2000) (finding that the “domain name ‘myniit.com,’ which incorporates the word NIIT as a prominent part thereof, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade name and trademark NIIT”); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <myfreshlook.com> domain name. Complainant is required to produce a prima facie case in support of its allegations and then the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds Complainant has adequately established a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s submissions constitute a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its right or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Am. Express Co. v. Fan 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.”). The Panel, however, will examine the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that it has not granted Respondent permission to use its FRESHLOOK mark and that Respondent is not commonly known as the <myfreshlook.com> domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Dealwave,” which does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known as the disputed domain name. Respondent has not produced any evidence to show that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. World Photo Video & Imaging Corp., FA 109031 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 13, 2002) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by <aolcamera.com> or <aolcameras.com> because the respondent was doing business as “Sunset Camera” and “World Photo Video & Imaging Corp.”); see also Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark).
Respondent’s domain name resolves to a commercial website that contains “sponsored listings” for “Discount Contact Lenses,” “Contact Lenses – 70% Off,” “Cheapest Contact Lenses,” and many other third-party links under such headings. Complainant contends that these links resolve to competing contact lens companies. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name 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 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).”); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant has presented evidence to the Panel showing that Respondent’s domain name resolves to website containing many third-party links to competing contact lens manufacturers and distributors. The Panel assumes that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet traffic to such a site disrupts Complainant’s business. Because of this disruption, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors); 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).
Further, Complainant argues that, “Respondent owns a web site at [<myfreshlook.com>] seeking to generate ‘click-through’ revenue from users searching for information about Complainant and its contact lens products.” The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also 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).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <myfreshlook.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 27, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page