Miller Brewing Company v. Peter
Carrington a/k/a Party Night, Inc.
Claim
Number: FA0303000151398
Complainant is
Miller Brewing Company, Milwaukee, WI, USA (“Complainant”) represented
by Nathan D. Jamison of Quarles & Brady LLP. Respondent is
Peter Carrington a/k/a Party Night Inc., Amsterdam, the Netherlands (“Respondent”).
The
domain name at issue is <millervrl.com> registered with Key-Systems
Gmbh.
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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on March 24, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 26, 2003.
On
March 26, 2003, Key-Systems Gmbh confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <millervrl.com> is registered with Key-Systems Gmbh
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems Gmbh has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems Gmbh registration
agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by
third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the "Policy").
On
March 26, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
April 15, 2003 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@millervrl.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
April 23, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as
Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the 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."
Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents
submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <millervrl.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MILLER LITE VIRTUAL RACING
LEAGUE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <millervrl.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <millervrl.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) for the MILLER LITE VIRTUAL RACING LEAGUE mark (Reg. No.
2,610,520 registered on January 8, 2002) in relation to entertainment services,
namely providing an online computer game. Complainant, a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, brews and sells beer. As part of its
promotional efforts, Complainant operates the “Miller Lite Virtual Racing
League,” an online competition, at the domain name <millerlitevrl.com>.
Respondent
registered the <millervrl.com> domain name on April 20, 2002.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to
<hanky-panky-college.com>, an apparently pornographic website.
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."
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.
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.
Complainant has
established that it has rights in the MILLER LITE VIRTUAL RACING LEAGUE mark
through registration with the USPTO.
Respondent’s <millervrl.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed
domain name simply omits the word “lite” and abbreviates the “virtual racing
league” portion of Complainant’s mark. Neither the omission of the word “lite”
nor the abbreviation of the last three words of Complainant’s mark significantly
differentiates Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark with regard to
the “confusingly similar” analysis of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd.
v. Toronto Maple Leafs!, D2000-1510 (Jan. 24, 2001) (finding that the
domain name <leafs.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks,
where Complainant holds many trademarks that contain the term “LEAFS”); see
also WestJet Air Center, Inc. v. West
Jets LLC, FA 96882 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2001) (finding that the <westjets.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, where Complainant
holds the WEST JET AIR CENTER mark); see also Minn. State Lottery v. Mendes, FA 96701 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 2,
2001) (finding that the <mnlottery.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s MINNESOTA STATE LOTTERY registered mark); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Montrose Corp., D2000-1568 (WIPO Jan. 25, 2001)
(finding the domain name <ms-office-2000.com> to be confusingly similar
even though the mark MICROSOFT is abbreviated).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
failed to respond to the Complaint in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel may
accept all of Complainant’s reasonable allegations and inferences as true. See
Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure
of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is
tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard”); see
also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons
AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows
a presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly
contradicted by the evidence).
Moreover,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate its
rights to or legitimate interests in the <millervrl.com> domain
name. As Complainant has established a prima facie case against
Respondent by asserting Respondent lacks any rights to or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show
that it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See
G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002)
(holding where a Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the domain name it is incumbent on
Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion
because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the
respondent”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624
(WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts
to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of
rights and legitimate interests in the domain name).
Respondent is
using the <millervrl.com> domain name to redirect Internet users
to <hanky-panky-college.com>, an apparently pornographic website. Linking
a domain name confusingly similar to a registered mark to a pornographic
website is neither a use in connection with 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
Nat’l Football League Prop., Inc. v. One Sex Entm’t Co., D2000-0118 (WIPO
Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain names <chargergirls.com> and
<chargergirls.net> where the Respondent linked these domain names to its
pornographic website); see also
Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5,
2001) (finding that infringing on another's well-known mark to provide a link
to a pornographic site is not a legitimate or fair use).
Respondent has
failed to provide the Panel with any evidence to show that Respondent is
commonly known by either MILLER VRL or <millervrl.com>. Therefore,
Respondent has failed to establish that it has rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO,
Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (Interpreting
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known
by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see
also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country
Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent
does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the
mark).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
using the <millervrl.com> domain name to divert Internet traffic
to <hanky-panky-college.com>, an apparently pornographic website. The use
of a domain name confusingly similar to a registered mark to link to a
pornographic website is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CCA
Indus., Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (finding that “this
association with a pornographic web site can itself constitute bad faith”); see
also MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading,
D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that the association of a confusingly
similar domain name with a pornographic website can constitute bad faith).
The Panel may
infer that Respondent is deriving commercial gain from its operation of an
apparently pornographic website. Thus, Respondent’s registration and use of the
disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion
between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s registered mark for
Respondent’s commercial gain. See Kmart v. Kahn, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary
use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites
and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that
Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv)); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA
123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and
used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because
Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet
users to its commercial website).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <millervrl.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
April 25, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page