Zone Labs, L.L.C. v. Domain Admin / Taranga Services Pty Ltd
Claim Number: FA1204001440329
Complainant is Zone Labs, L.L.C. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Taranga Services Pty Ltd (“Respondent”), New Zealand.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <zonealar.com>, <zoealarm.com>, and <zonealarme.com>, registered with Moniker.
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 20, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 20, 2012.
On April 23, 2012, Moniker confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <zonealar.com>, <zoealarm.com>, and <zonealarme.com> domain names are registered with Moniker and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Moniker has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker 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 30, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 21, 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@zonealar.com, postmaster@zoealarm.com, postmaster@zonealarme.com. Also on April 30, 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 23, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
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 alleges that it has established its rights in the ZONEALARM mark by registering it with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,510,036 registered November 20, 2001). Complainant submits a printout from the USPTO website to verify its allegation. The evidence submitted indicates that the mark is duly registered and that Complainant is the owner of record. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the ZONEALARM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by registering it with the USPTO. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).
Complainant also alleges that Respondent’s <zonealar.com>, <zoealarm.com>, and <zonealarme.com> domain names are confusingly similar to its ZONEALARM mark. The Panel notes that both the <zonealar.com> and <zoealarm.com> domain names appear to be missing a letter, “m” or “n,” respectively. The Panel further notes that the <zonealarme.com> domain name includes an additional letter “e.” Lastly, the Panel notes that all of the disputed domain names include the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel concludes that Respondent has failed to adequately differentiate its disputed domain names from Complainant’s ZONEALARM mark and finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Granarolo S.p.A. v. Dinoia, FA 649854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (finding that the <granarolo.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered G GRANAROLO mark); 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).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names 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 is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent has not offered any evidence to support a finding to the contrary. Complainant states that the WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain names as “Domain Admin / Taranga Services Pty Ltd.” Based upon the evidence available, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See MRA Holding, LLC v. Costnet, FA 140454 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2003) (noting that “the disputed domain name does not even correctly spell a cognizable phrase” in finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the name “girls gon wild” or <girlsgonwild.com>); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).
Complainant states that the disputed domain names resolve to a website offering links to third-party businesses, some of which are competitors. Complainant asserts that Respondent presumably receives pay-per-click fees from these links. Previous panels have determined that such a use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name. See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that, because the “[r]espondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring a series of advertising links to various third-parties, many of whom offer products and services in direct competition with those offered under [the complainant’s] mark,” the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be a use in connection with 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)). Therefore, the Panel concludes 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 of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant also argues that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting by registering domain names that are designed to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors. Previous panels have held that when a disputed domain name differs from a given mark by a single letter it may constitute typosquatting. See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”). Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting which supports a finding that it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant claims that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of infringing registrations as a “recalcitrant, serial cybersquatter.” Complainant states that Respondent has been a party to previous adverse UDRP cases. See Enterprise Holding, Inc. v. Taranga Services Pty Ltd, FA 1385861 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2011); see also Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Taranga Services Pty Ltd., FA 1387335 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 1, 2011); see also Citigroup, Inc. v. Taranga Services Pty Ltd., FA 1377829 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 22, 2011). Based upon the past cases provided, the Panel concludes that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of infringing registrations, which demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 1036129 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (holding prior UDRP proceedings were sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations); see also Westcoast Contempo Fashions Ltd. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 814312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).
Complainant also claims that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to generate click-through revenue, constituting bad faith registration and use. Complainant submits screenshots of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, which support Complainant’s claims. Complainant states that the websites offer links to third-party websites, some of which compete with Complainant directly. Complainant argues that Respondent presumably collects a small click-through fee for each Internet user it confuses into clicking on one of the links offered. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to 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 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).
Complainant claims that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting by using typographic errors associated with its mark as its domain names. Previous panels have held that typosquatting is further evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting, and concludes that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 <zonealar.com>, <zoealarm.com>, and <zonealarme.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 31, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page