American International Group, Inc. v. Domain Adminstration Limited c/o William Vaughan
Claim Number: FA0711001106369
Complainant is American International Group, Inc. (“Complainant”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <americangenerallifeinsurance.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On November 20, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 10, 2007 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@americangenerallifeinsurance.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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." 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <americangenerallifeinsurance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN GENERAL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <americangenerallifeinsurance.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <americangenerallifeinsurance.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, American International Group, Inc., is among the largest international insurance and investment companies in the world. Since at least as early as 1926, Complainant, through its member companies and predecessors-in-interest, has used the mark AMERICAN GENERAL in connection with insurance and financial services. Complainant has sought and obtained trademark registrations for the AMERICAN GENERAL mark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,864,984 issued July 20, 2004; Reg. No. 2,642,835 issued October 29, 2002; and Reg. No. 803,239 issued February 1, 1966). Complainant also operates websites at the <americangeneral.com>, <agfinance.com>, and <aigag.com> domain names.
Respondent registered <americangenerallifeinsurance.com> on
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. 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.”).
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in
the AMERICAN GENERAL mark through its registration with the USPTO, which
satisfy the requirement of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803
(Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant contends that Respondent’s disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to its mark.
Respondent’s <americangenerallifeinsurance.com>
domain name includes the entirety of Complainant’s mark adding only the generic
terms “life” and “insurance,” which directly relate to Complainant’s business,
and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that spaces are impermissible
and a generic top-level domain, such as “.com,”
“.net,” “.biz,” or “.org,” is required in domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See American Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun
Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition
of the term “assurance” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently
differentiate the name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the
appended term related directly to the complainant’s business); see
also Trip
Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943
(Nat. Arb. Forum
The Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Where Complainant makes a prima facie case under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth concrete
evidence that it does possess rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case in the matter at
hand. See Do The Hustle, LLC v.
Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the
complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to
come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this
information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).
Respondent has failed to submit a response to the
Complaint. Therefore, the Panel is
entitled to presume that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg.,
FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Respondent’s failure to respond
means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote
its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶
4(a)(ii).”); see also American Express Co. v. Fang
Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The disputed domain name, <americangenerallifeinsurance.com>,
currently resolves to a website displaying links to various providers of life and health
insurance that are directly competitive with Complainant. 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 Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Diverting
customers, who are looking for products relating to the famous SEIKO mark, to a
website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a noncommercial or fair use under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free
Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users
seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's
benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not authorized to
use Complainant’s AMERICAN GENERAL mark in any way and is not commonly known by
the <americangenerallifeinsurance.com> domain
name. Nowhere in Respondent’s WHOIS information or elsewhere in the
record does it indicate that Respondent is or ever was commonly known by the <americangenerallifeinsurance.com> domain
name. Absent evidence suggesting
otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights to or
legitimate interests in the domain name in accordance with Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the
disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s AMERICAN GENERAL
mark. Because the resulting website
advertises services so similar to those offered by Complainant and absent
evidence to the contrary, the Panel agrees
with Complainant’s contention and finds this conduct to be further
evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys.,
FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The disputed domain name, <americangenerallifeinsurance.com>,
currently resolves to a website displaying links to various providers of life and health
insurance that are directly competitive with Complainant. The Panel finds such use to establish that
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt.
Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use
of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a website
containing commercial links to the websites of the complainant’s competitors
represented bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Moreover, Respondent is presumed to be benefiting through the use of click-through fees from these links to Complainant’s competitors. Internet users searching for Complainant’s AMERICAN GENERAL mark would easily be confused by the disputed domain name, which results in additional traffic to Respondent’s websites. The Panel finds such confusion for commercial gain to be further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting from click-through fees).
The 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 <americangenerallifeinsurance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dated: December 31, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum