Mattel, Inc. v. Host for You / Vladimir Snezko
Claim Number: FA1203001432364
Complainant is Mattel, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jamie E. Platkin of Cantor Colburn LLP, Connecticut, USA. Respondent is Host for You / Vladimir Snezko (“Respondent”), Russia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <barbiegames.com>, registered with ENOM, INC.
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 February 29, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 29, 2012.
On March 1, 2012, ENOM, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <barbiegames.com> domain name is registered with ENOM, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ENOM, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the ENOM, 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 March 19, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 9, 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@barbiegames.com. Also on March 19, 2012, 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 April 20, 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
1. Complainant uses the BARBIE mark in connection with the sale of dolls, toys, playthings, games, and licensed products.
2. Complainant own trademark registrations with United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 689,655 registered December 1, 1959), as well as with the Russian Federation’s Federal Service for Intellectual Property (“RFFSIP”) (e.g., Reg. No. 208,930 registered February 12, 2002).
3. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 7, 2001.
4. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
5. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
6. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that features third-party hyperlinks, some of which resolve to websites that compete with Complainant.
7. Respondent commercially benefits from these hyperlinks by receiving click-through fees.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Mattel, Inc., uses the BARBIE mark in connection with the sale of dolls, toys, playthings, games, and licensed products. Complainant owns trademark registrations with United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 689,655 registered December 1, 1959), as well as with the Russian Federation’s Federal Service for Intellectual Property (“RFFSIP”) (e.g., Reg. No. 208,930 registered February 12, 2002).
Respondent, Host for You / Vladimir Snezko, registered the disputed domain name on May 7, 2001. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that features third-party hyperlinks, some of which resolve to websites that compete with 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."
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.
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.”).
Complainant contends that its registration of the BARBIE mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 689,655 registered December 1, 1959), as well as with the RFFSIP (e.g., Reg. No. 208,930 registered February 12, 2002), establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Previous panels have found that registration of a mark with a national trademark authority is sufficient to confer rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)”); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction). The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), dating back to December 1, 1959 for the USPTO trademark registration and February 12, 2002 for the RFFSIP trademark registration.
Complainant also argues that the <barbiegames.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its BARBIE mark within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain name wholly includes Complainant’s BARBIE mark, while adding the generic term “games” and affixing the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Previous panels have not recognized the addition of either a generic term or a gTLD to a complainant’s mark as creating a unique, non-confusingly similar domain name. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <barbiegames.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant asserts that it has never licensed or authorized Respondent’s use of the name. The WHOIS information lists the domain name registrant as “Vladimir Snezko,” which is not similar to the <barbiegames.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under 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 M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name can be considered neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a page featuring links to websites that directly compete with Complainant. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a site displaying competing links shows a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel services that competed with the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute 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).”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent’s provision of links to sites offering products that directly compete with those offered by Complainant evidences Respondent’s disruption of Complainant’s business, thereby constituting bad faith registration and use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name demonstrates an intent to create confusion as to Complaint’s endorsement of, or affiliation with, Respondent’s sites. Respondent seeks to use this confusion to draw traffic to its site, where it presumably receives click-through fees and that, in this way, Respondent is attempting to generate a commercial gain from the confusion it creates. The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name shows bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name which is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <barbiegames.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 4, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page