Citrix Online, LLC v. Domain Dotter
Claim Number: FA1305001502221
Complainant is Citrix Online, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Domain Dotter (“Respondent”), Quebec.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <fgotomeeting.com>, <gfotomeeting.com>, <ghotomeeting.com>, <giotomeeting.com>, <goitomeeting.com>, <goowebinar.com>, <goptomeeting.com>, <gortomeeting.com>, <gotiomeeting.com>, <gotmoeeting.com>, <gotoebinar.com>, <gotomeetimng.com>, <gotomeetinbg.com>, <gotomeetinfg.com>, <gotomeetingf.com>, <gotomeetiung.com>, <gotomeetuing.com>, <gotomeetying.com>, <gotomeewting.com>, <gotomeeyting.com>, <gotomereting.com>, <gotomeweting.com>, <gotomneeting.com>, <gotomreeting.com>, <gotomweeting.com>, <gotonmeeting.com>, <gotowebenar.com>, <gotowebiar.com>, <gotpomeeting.com>, <gotyomeeting.com>, <goytomeeting.com>, <gtowebinar.com>, <hgotomeeting.com>, and <hotomeeting.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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 29, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 29, 2013.
On May 31, 2013, Wild West Domains, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <fgotomeeting.com>, <gfotomeeting.com>, <ghotomeeting.com>, <giotomeeting.com>, <goitomeeting.com>, <goowebinar.com>, <goptomeeting.com>, <gortomeeting.com>, <gotiomeeting.com>, <gotmoeeting.com>, <gotoebinar.com>, <gotomeetimng.com>, <gotomeetinbg.com>, <gotomeetinfg.com>, <gotomeetingf.com>, <gotomeetiung.com>, <gotomeetuing.com>, <gotomeetying.com>, <gotomeewting.com>, <gotomeeyting.com>, <gotomereting.com>, <gotomeweting.com>, <gotomneeting.com>, <gotomreeting.com>, <gotomweeting.com>, <gotonmeeting.com>, <gotowebenar.com>, <gotowebiar.com>, <gotpomeeting.com>, <gotyomeeting.com>, <goytomeeting.com>, <gtowebinar.com>, <hgotomeeting.com>, and <hotomeeting.com> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Wild West Domains, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 June 3, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 24, 2013 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@fgotomeeting.com, postmaster@gfotomeeting.com, postmaster@ghotomeeting.com, postmaster@giotomeeting.com, postmaster@goitomeeting.com, postmaster@goowebinar.com, postmaster@goptomeeting.com, postmaster@gortomeeting.com, postmaster@gotiomeeting.com, postmaster@gotmoeeting.com, postmaster@gotoebinar.com, postmaster@gotomeetimng.com, postmaster@gotomeetinbg.com, postmaster@gotomeetinfg.com, postmaster@gotomeetingf.com, postmaster@gotomeetiung.com, postmaster@gotomeetuing.com, postmaster@gotomeetying.com, postmaster@gotomeewting.com, postmaster@gotomeeyting.com, postmaster@gotomereting.com, postmaster@gotomeweting.com, postmaster@gotomneeting.com, postmaster@gotomreeting.com, postmaster@gotomweeting.com, postmaster@gotonmeeting.com, postmaster@gotowebenar.com, postmaster@gotowebiar.com, postmaster@gotpomeeting.com, postmaster@gotyomeeting.com, postmaster@goytomeeting.com, postmaster@gtowebinar.com, postmaster@hgotomeeting.com, postmaster@hotomeeting.com. Also on June 3, 2013, 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 July 1, 2013, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Complainant offers web based support services such as, selling web-based remote access, support, and collaboration software and services, all of which are accessible through its website at <citrixonline.com>.
2. Complainant owns the exclusive right to use its registered marks in connection with computer software, telecommunications, and computer services.
a. Complainant has used the GOTOMEETING and GOTOWEBINAR marks continuously since 2006.
b. Complainant uses these marks in connection with conducting online conferences, meetings, demonstrations, virtual tours, presentations, and interactive discussions.
c. Complainant owns registrations for the GOTOMEETING and GOTOWEBINAR marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
i. GOTOMEETING (Reg. No. 3,172,020 registered November 14, 2006)
ii. GOTOWEBINAR (Reg. No. 3,469,501 registered July 15, 2008)
3. Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOTOMEETING and GOTOWEBINAR marks.
4. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
a. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
b. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way.
c. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its marks in the disputed domain names.
d. Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s “Cease and Desist” letter.
e. Respondent’s disputed domain names redirect unsuspecting Internet users to websites featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which compete with Complainant.
f. Respondent presumably receives pay-per-click fees from the links featured on the websites resolving from Respondent’s disputed domain names.
g. Respondent is not providing a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names.
5. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
a. Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names indicates typosquatting behavior.
b. Respondent attempts to sell the disputed domain names with the exception of the <gtowebinar.com> domain name.
c. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to generate revenue from the third party links featured on the resolving websites.
d. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to attract and mislead Internet users for Respondent’s profit.
e. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names disrupts Complainant’s business by diverting potential customers away from Complainant’s products and to third party competing websites.
f. Respondent’s disputed domain names display content directly related to Complainant’s business.
g. Respondent has a pattern of typosquatting behavior.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Citrix Online, LLC, offers web based support services such as, selling web-based remote access, support, and collaboration software and services, all of which are accessible through its website at <citrixonline.com>.
Complainant owns registrations for the GOTOMEETING and GOTOWEBINAR marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
i. GOTOMEETING (Reg. No. 3,172,020 registered November 14, 2006)
ii. GOTOWEBINAR (Reg. No. 3,469,501 registered July 15, 2008)
The earliest registration by Respondent, Domain Dotter, was in 2010, which is after Complainant’s first use in commerce or its registration with the USPTO.
Respondent’s disputed domain names redirect unsuspecting Internet users to websites featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which 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.”).
Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to show Complainant has rights in the GOTOMEETING and GOTOWEBINAR marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also KCTS Television Inc. v. Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2001) (holding that it does not matter for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) whether the complainant’s mark is registered in a country other than that of the respondent’s place of business).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <fgotomeeting.com>, <gfotomeeting.com>, <ghotomeeting.com>, <giotomeeting.com>, <goitomeeting.com>, <goowebinar.com>, <goptomeeting.com>, <gortomeeting.com>, <gotiomeeting.com>, <gotmoeeting.com>, <gotoebinar.com>, <gotomeetimng.com>, <gotomeetinbg.com>, <gotomeetinfg.com>, <gotomeetingf.com>, <gotomeetiung.com>, <gotomeetuing.com>, <gotomeetying.com>, <gotomeewting.com>, <gotomeeyting.com>, <gotomereting.com>, <gotomeweting.com>, <gotomneeting.com>, <gotomreeting.com>, <gotomweeting.com>, <gotonmeeting.com>, <gotowebenar.com>, <gotowebiar.com>, <gotpomeeting.com>, <gotyomeeting.com>, <goytomeeting.com>, <gtowebinar.com>, <hgotomeeting.com>, and <hotomeeting.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOTOMEETING and GOTOWEBINAR marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain names differ by only a singer character from Complainant’s marks. Complainant also contends that some of the marks differ by only the juxtaposition of two characters when compared to Complainant’s marks. The Panel finds that the <fgotomeeting.com>, <gfotomeeting.com>, <ghotomeeting.com>, <giotomeeting.com>, <goitomeeting.com>,<goptomeeting.com>, <gortomeeting.com>, <gotiomeeting.com>, <gotmoeeting.com>,<gotomeetimng.com>, <gotomeetinbg.com>, <gotomeetinfg.com>, <gotomeetingf.com>, <gotomeetiung.com>, <gotomeetuing.com>, <gotomeetying.com>, <gotomeewting.com>, <gotomeeyting.com>, <gotomereting.com>, <gotomeweting.com>, <gotomneeting.com>, <gotomreeting.com>, <gotomweeting.com>, <gotonmeeting.com>,<gotpomeeting.com>, <gotyomeeting.com>, <goytomeeting.com>, <hgotomeeting.com>, and <hotomeeting.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOTOMEETING mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel also finds that the <goowebinar.com>, <gotoebinar.com>, <gotowebenar.com>, <gotowebiar.com>, and <gtowebinar.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOTOWEBINAR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
All of the disputed domain names feature the generic top-level domain “gTLD” “.com” attached to the end of the domain name. Variations such as misspellings, adding letters, juxtaposing letters, or adding gTLDs such as “.com” are insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a given mark. 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 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 Pfizer Inc. v. BargainName.com, D2005-0299 (WIPO Apr. 28, 2005) (holding that the <pfzer.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s PFIZER mark, as the respondent simply omitted the letter “i”); see also Wyndham IP Corp. v. LaPorte Holdings, Inc., FA 373545 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 17, 2005) (finding the <wynhdam.com> and <wyandham.com> domain names to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s WYNDHAM mark because the domain names merely transposed letters in 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 asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it is not commonly known by any of the names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant contends that Respondent has no trademark or intellectual property rights in the disputed domain names. Complainant contends that the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists entities other than the trademark associated with Complainant. Complainant also argues that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its marks in any way. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as required by Policies ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to websites featuring links to third party websites, some of which competing with Complainant’s business. Complainant also argues that Respondent is receiving pay-per-click fees from the links present on the websites. The Panel concludes that using confusingly similar domain names to resolve to websites featuring competing third party links is 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 United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Savchenko, FA 1105728 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 12, 2007) (“The disputed domain name, <usaa-insurance.net>, currently resolves to a website displaying Complainant’s marks and contains links to Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds this to be 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).”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names).
Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). All of the disputed domain names, with the exception of the <gtowebinar.com> domain name, feature some indication that the domain name is for sale. Some of the domain names feature the phrase “The Domain may be for sale by its owner” and others feature the phrase “Buy This Domain.” Previous panels have found that offering to sell a disputed domain name indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). With the exception of the <gtowebinar.com> domain name, the Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to sell the disputed domain names indicates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent is a recalcitrant typosquatter under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Complainant has provided evidence of various UDRP decisions held against Respondent. See Aeropostale Procurement Co., Inc. v. Domain Dotter, FA 1488932; see also Cabela’s, Inc. v. Domain Dotter, FA 1385890; see also Lending Tree, LLC v. Domain Dotter, FA 1423813. Previous panels have found that prior UDRP proceedings against a respondent were sufficient to establish a pattern of bad faith registration. See 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). The Panel concludes that the numerous past adverse UDRP decisions against Respondent demonstrate a pattern of bad faith behavior under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant claims that Respondent’s resolving websites feature links that compete with Complainant. Complainant asserts that these links divert potential consumers away from Complainant’s legitimate website thus disrupting Complainant’s business. Previous panels have found that this type of use indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (“The disputed domain names resolve to websites that list links to competitors of Complainant, evidence that Respondent intends to disrupt Complainant’s business, a further indication of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”) The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using and has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by using the confusingly similar disputed domain names to attract Internet users to the resolving websites featuring pay-per-click links through which Respondent receives revenue. Complainant further claims that Respondent’s resolving websites display content and keywords directly relating to Complainant’s business. Complainant argues that some of the resolving websites feature Complainant’s marks spelled correctly, demonstrating Respondent’s intent to improperly capitalize on Complainant’s marks. Previous panels have found bad faith when a respondent provides links to a complainant’s competitors and commercially gains. 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).”) The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant contends that respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names that are typosquatted versions of Complainant’s marks. Each domain name contains a one-letter variation of either the GOTOMEETING mark or the GOTOWEBINAR mark. Typosquatting is merely an intentionally misspelled mark within a domain nameand indicates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Tak Ume domains for sale, FA 154528 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2003) (holding that the practice of typosquatting “diverts Internet users who misspell Complainant’s mark to a website apparently owned by Respondent for Respondent’s commercial gain. ‘Typosquatting’ has been recognized as evidencing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
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 <fgotomeeting.com>, <gfotomeeting.com>, <ghotomeeting.com>, <giotomeeting.com>, <goitomeeting.com>, <goowebinar.com>, <goptomeeting.com>, <gortomeeting.com>, <gotiomeeting.com>, <gotmoeeting.com>, <gotoebinar.com>, <gotomeetimng.com>, <gotomeetinbg.com>, <gotomeetinfg.com>, <gotomeetingf.com>, <gotomeetiung.com>, <gotomeetuing.com>, <gotomeetying.com>, <gotomeewting.com>, <gotomeeyting.com>, <gotomereting.com>, <gotomeweting.com>, <gotomneeting.com>, <gotomreeting.com>, <gotomweeting.com>, <gotonmeeting.com>, <gotowebenar.com>, <gotowebiar.com>, <gotpomeeting.com>, <gotyomeeting.com>, <goytomeeting.com>, <gtowebinar.com>, <hgotomeeting.com>, and <hotomeeting.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 15, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page