Screen Actors Guild-American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists and Screen Actors Guild, Inc. and American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists v. Secured Financial Group / Steve Snyder
Claim Number: FA1204001439293
Complainant is Screen Actors Guild-American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists and Screen Actors Guild, Inc. and American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists (“Complainant”), represented by Stephen J. Strauss of FULWIDER PATTON LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Secured Financial Group / Steve Snyder (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <sag-aftra.com> and <sag-aftra.org>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 13, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 13, 2012.
On April 13, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sag-aftra.com> and <sag-aftra.org> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 April 18, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 8, 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@sag-aftra.com and postmaster@sag-aftra.org. Also on April 18, 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 10, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <sag-aftra.com> and <sag-aftra.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SAG and AFTRA marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sag-aftra.com> and <sag-aftra.org> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <sag-aftra.com> and <sag-aftra.org> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Respondent’s disputed domain names are composed of two marks, one owned by Screen Actors Guild, Inc., and one owned by American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Screen Actors Guild, Inc. and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists are related, making it appropriate to consider them as one Complainant.
Complainant has registered the SAG mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,410,100 registered December 5, 2000) and the AFTRA mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,013,058 registered November 5, 1996).
Respondent registered the disputed domain names no earlier than June 20, 2010, and uses them to resolve to commercial websites that sell a publication which offers advice on how to qualify for entry into Complainant’s unions.
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.”).
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
There are three named Complainants in this matter: Screen Actors Guild-American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists, Screen Actors Guild, Inc., and American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.” Complainant submits trademark certificates for both the SAG and AFTRA marks and states that, since both marks are included in the disputed domain names, the listed Complainants have a right to be a party to the dispute. Complainant also states that all three of the listed Complainants are merged and provides a screen shot of a website as proof.
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games and International Olympic Committee v. Hardeep Malik, FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Investments, Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that there is a sufficient nexus between the complainants to treat them as one Complainant in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the marks asserted pursuant to 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 Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO).
Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SAG and AFTRA marks. The <sag-aftra.com> and <sag-aftra.org> domain names include both marks in their entirety, along with a hyphen between the marks and the generic top-level domains (“gTLD”) “.com” and “.org.” The Panel finds that there is no distinction between Respondent’s disputed domain names and Complainant’s marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nintendo of Am. Inc. v. Pokemon, D2000-1230 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where respondent combined the complainant’s POKEMON and PIKACHU marks to form the <pokemonpikachu.com> domain name); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Pelham, FA 117911 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2002) (finding that the addition of other drug names does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, “it merely creates a domain name with severe potential to confuse Internet users as to the source, sponsorship and affiliation of the domain”); see also Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark").
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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 is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant states that the WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain names as “Secured Financial Group / Steve Snyder,” which does not suggest any connection. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); 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 also argues that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Complainant states that Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to commercial websites that sell a publication that offers advice on how to qualify for entry into Complainant’s unions. Complainant claims that this use competes with its own legitimate service and product offerings. Previous panels have held that this use does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name. See Florists’ Transworld Delivery v. Malek, FA 676433 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 6, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <ftdflowers4less.com> domain name to sell flowers in competition with the complainant did not give rise to any legitimate interest in the domain name); see also Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not making 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 Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent has registered multiple domain names that are a part of this dispute, which supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Previous panels have held that registering multiple domain names in one instance is evidence of a pattern of bad faith registration for the purposes of the UDRP. See Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tel. Island, D2004-0711 (WIPO Nov. 15, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent registered the <toshibastrata.com> domain name to prevent the complainant from reflecting the TOSHIBA and STRATA marks in a corresponding domain name).
Respondent sells a publication on its websites that gives advice on how to qualify for entry into Complainant’s unions. Internet users are diverted to Respondent’s websites and may purchase products from Respondent rather than seeking out Complainant’s legitimate product offerings. The Panel thus finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names disrupt Complainant’s business, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website); see also Jerie v. Burian, FA 795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <sportlivescore.com> domain name in order to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because the respondent was maintaining a website in direct competition with the complainant).
The disputed domain names resolve to websites offering a book for sale that provides information about how to get into Complainant’s unions. The Panel presumes that Respondent charges Internet users for the book. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Scholastic Inc. v. Applied Software Solutions, Inc., D2000-1629 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent initially used the disputed domain name to sell educational services that targeted the complainant’s market); see also Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
Complainant claims that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the SAG and AFTRA marks. Complainant states that the website to which the disputed domain names resolve includes content that directly relates to Complainant and its marks, specifically a book on how to achieve membership in S.A.G. and A.F.T.R.A. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the marks asserted, evidence supporting bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Radio & Records, Inc. v. Nat'l Voiceover, FA 665235 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2006) (finding that there are reasonable grounds to infer that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant's rights in the mark, and therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since Complainant's magazine covers an industry towards which Respondent's services are marketed).
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 <sag-aftra.com> and <sag-aftra.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page