Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rampe Purda
Claim Number: FA1102001371586
Complainant is Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by James A. Thomas of Troutman Sanders LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Rampe Purda (“Respondent”), Finland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <churchillinsurancequote.com>, registered with Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) Ltd d/b/a Hebeidomains.com.
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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 7, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 7, 2011. The Complaint was submitted in both Finnish and English.
On March 9, 2011, Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) Ltd d/b/a Hebeidomains.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name is registered with Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) Ltd d/b/a Hebeidomains.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) Ltd d/b/a Hebeidomains.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) Ltd d/b/a Hebeidomains.com 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 March 10, 2011, the Forum served the Finnish language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Finnish language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 2011 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@churchillinsurancequote.com. Also on March 10, 2011, the Finnish language Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 April 1, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Finnish language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHURCHILL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Churchill Insurance Co. Ltd., is an insurance company based in the United Kingdom that provides various insurance services, including home insurance, car insurance, travel insurance, pet insurance and motorcycle insurance. Complainant owns trademark registrations for the CHURCHILL mark with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) (Reg. No. 2,042,931 issued November 28, 1997) and the European Union Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 000822916 issued June 17, 1999).
Respondent, Rampe Purda, registered the <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name on June 18, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying various commercial links to third parties offering the same type of insurance services offered by 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."
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.
Complainant owns trademark registrations for the CHURCHILL mark with the UKIPO (Reg. No. 2,042,931 issued November 28, 1997) and the OHIM (Reg. No. 000822916 issued June 17, 1999). The Panel finds that Complainant’s ownership of these trademarks with the UKIPO and the OHIM sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHURCHILL mark because the disputed domain name modifies Complainant’s mark only in the addition of the descriptive terms “insurance” and “quote” and the attachment of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel holds that adding descriptive terms to Complainant’s mark does not alleviate confusing similarity. See Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001) (“CHANEL, the salient feature of the Domain Names, is identical to a mark in which Complainant has shown prior rights. The addition of the generic term, “perfumes” is not a distinguishing feature, and in this case seems to increase the likelihood of confusion because it is an apt term for Complainant’s business.”); see also Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2005) (finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark). The Panel also finds that the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). The Panel concludes that Respondent’s <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHURCHILL mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In this case, the Panel finds that Complainant has adequately presented a prima facie case. Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s allegations allows the Panel to infer that Complainant’s allegations are true in that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent’s failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint). The Panel, however, elects to consider the evidence in the record in light of the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors to determine if Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name. There is no information in the record suggesting or supporting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name as the WHOIS information for the domain name identifies the registrant as “Rampe Purda.” Accordingly, the Panel concludes from the lack of evidence that Respondent is not commonly known by, and consequently lacks rights and legitimate interests, in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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.”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).
Complainant attests that Respondent’s <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name misdirects Internet users to a directory website that links Internet users, via pay-per-click links, to other third-party websites offering insurance services and products. The Panel finds that this use is insufficient to qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) and does not grant Respondent rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Collazo, FA 144628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <hpcanada.com> domain name to post links to commercial websites and subject Internet users to pop-up advertisements was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant).
The Panel finds Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring a variety of third-party links for insurance products and services that compete with Complainant’s. Using the disputed domain name in this manner disrupts Complainant’s business because Complainant’s potential customers are diverted from Complainant’s website and distracted by competing services and companies. The Panel finds that Respondent’s activities in impeding consumers’ ability to reach Complainant’s website demonstrate bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Jerie v. Burian, FA 795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <sportlivescore.com> domain name in order to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because the respondent was maintaining a website in direct competition with the complainant); see also 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 directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s disputed domain name combines Complainant’s mark with two terms that directly relate to Complainant’s business in the <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name in order to attract Internet users seeking Complainant. When these unsuspecting consumers are diverted to Respondent’s directory website through the disputed domain name, Respondent uses the pay-per-click links to advertise the services of competing insurance providers. Respondent presumably receives financial compensation in the form of “click-through” fees every time one of the advertised links is clicked. The Panel finds Respondent’s efforts to attract Complainant’s potential business for Respondent’s own benefit establish bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 837920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website 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 Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
The Panel finds Complainant has established 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 <churchillinsurancequote.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: April 1, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page