Yahoo! Inc. v. ALHIJAZI / saad HIJAZI
Claim Number: FA1205001442196
Complainant is Yahoo! Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brian J. Winterfeldt of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washinton D.C., USA. Respondent is ALHIJAZI / saad HIJAZI (“Respondent”), Saudi Arabia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <upyahoo.com>, registered with Name.com LLC.
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 May 3, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 3, 2012.
On May 3, 2012, Name.com LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <upyahoo.com> domain name is registered with Name.com LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.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 May 3, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 23, 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@upyahoo.com. Also on May 3, 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 29, 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
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Yahoo! Inc., is a digital media company, with content covering news, shopping, photo sharing and finance, among other things, and is a popular electronic mail service provider. Complainant has registered the YAHOO! mark with trademark authorities around the world including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,040,222 registered February 25, 1997).
Respondent, ALHIJAZI / saad HIJAZI, registered the disputed domain name on April 7, 2010. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website offering a “Community & Adult Videos Forum” along with links to other forums and blogs. Respondent receives click-through fees when Internet users click on the links offered.
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 established rights in the YAHOO! mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)) by registering it with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,040,222 registered February 25, 1997). See Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (finding trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights; 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 claims that Respondent’s <upyahoo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark. The disputed domain name includes the entire mark, while adding two generic elements, the term “up,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The disputed domain name does not include the exclamation point from Complainant’s mark. These changes fail to differentiate Respondent’s disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s <upyahoo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Countrywide Fin. Corp. v. Johnson & Sons Sys., FA 1073019 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2007) (holding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” was irrelevant); see also AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names were confusingly similar to the AOL mark, as the addition of common terms to a mark does not distinguish the domain names from the mark).
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).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant states that nothing in the WHOIS information identifies Respondent by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “ALHIJAZI / saad HIJAZI.” 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).
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 name. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website offering a “Community & Adult Videos Forum” along with links to other forums and blogs. Respondent receives click-through fees when Internet users click on the links offered. Respondent also offers online forum services, making Respondent a direct competitor. Therefore, the Panel finda that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also 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)).
Complainant argues that Respondent had a clear goal of disrupting Complainant’s business when it registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering both competing services and links to competing services. This use disrupts Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that this disruption demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Univ. of Tex as Sys. v. Smith, FA 1195696 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2008) (finding that using the resolving website to divert Internet users to the complainant’s competitors constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)) ; see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering both competing service and links to competing services. Respondent receives click-through fees when Internet users click on the links offered. Because of the services offered on the website, consumers may be confused into believing Complainant is affiliated with Respondent and Respondent’s website. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s conduct demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site).
The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the YAHOO! mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2008) ("That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").
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 <upyahoo.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 12, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page