Vulcanium Metals Incorporated v. Roux Dastous
Claim Number: FA1204001438513
Complainant is Vulcanium Metals Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Nora A. Preece of Law Offices of Alter And Preece, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Roux Dastous (“Respondent”), France.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <vulcanium.biz>, registered with DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM.
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 9, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 10, 2012.
On April 9, 2012, DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <vulcanium.biz> domain name is registered with DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM has verified that Respondent is bound by the DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. d/b/a PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM 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 April 16, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 7, 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@vulcanium.biz. Also on April 16, 2012, 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 May 11, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (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 owns the VULCANIUM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,788,507 registered August 19, 1993) and with the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) (Reg. No. 1,016,936 registered September 28, 2009).
2) The <vulcanium.biz> domain name is identical to the VULCANIUM mark.
3) Complainant uses the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring “extreme and violent” adult-oriented material.
4) Complainant registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the relief requested.
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 has provided the Panel with trademark registrations that it owns for the VULCANIUM mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,788,507 registered August 19, 1993) and with WIPO (Reg. No. 1016936 registered September 28, 2009). The Panel finds that Complainant has protectable rights in the VULCANIUM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its trademark registrations with the USPTO and WIPO. See 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 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’)”).
Complainant further argues that Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s VULCANIUM mark where the only addition is the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.biz.” The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s domain name is in fact identical to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Vartanian, FA 1106528 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 26, 2007) (finding that the domain name <continentalairlines.biz> is identical to the complainant’s CONTINENTAL AIRLINES mark); 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).
Complainant has proven this element.
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 argues that Respondent has no trademark rights that would cover its registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant points to the WHOIS information, which identifies the registrant of the <vulcanium.biz> domain name as “Roux Dastous,” as evidence that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Based upon this, and all other evidence available, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also 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).
Complainant contends, and submits screen shot evidence to show, that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer graphic and violent adult-oriented material. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to provide such adult-oriented content does not amount to 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 Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost In Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of its domain name to link unsuspecting Internet traffic to an adult-orientated website, containing images of scantily clad women in provocative poses, did not constitute a connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use); see also Paws, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 125368 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2002) (holding that the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to an established mark to divert Internet users to an adult-oriented website “tarnishes Complainant’s mark and does not evidence noncommercial or fair use of the domain name by a respondent”).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark in the domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s redirection of Internet users to an adult-oriented website constitutes evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it resolves the identical domain name to a graphic, adult-oriented website. See Google Inc. v. Bassano, FA 232958 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <googlesex.info> domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Youtv, Inc. v. Alemdar, FA 94243 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent attracted users to his website for commercial gain and linked his website to adult-oriented websites).
Further, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for adult oriented material is, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CCA Indus., Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (“this association with [an adult-oriented] web site can itself constitute a bad faith”); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Party Night Inc., FA 144647 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s tarnishing use of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to adult-oriented websites was evidence that the domain names were being used in bad faith).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <vulcanium.biz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 14, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page