DECISION

 

Yahoo! Inc. and HotJobs.com, Ltd. v. Saeid Yomtobian d/b/a Movie Name Inc., $$$ Buy This Domain $$$ Buy This Domain $$$ and ***Desperate***  $250 buy it today, it won't last

Claim Number: FA0304000154591

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Yahoo! Inc., Sunnyvale, CA (“Complainant”) represented by David M. Kelly of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP. Respondent is Saeid Yomtobian, Malibu, CA (“Respondent”).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <ahoo.com>, <ahoos.com>, <hahoo.com>, <hahoos.com>, <hojob.com>, <hojobs.com>, <hojobs.net>, <hojobs.org>, <uahoo.net>, <uahoo.org>, <wwwhahoo.com>, <wwwyoo.com>, <yehoo.com>, <yehoo.org>, <yehooo.com> and <yohhoo.com> registered with Dotster, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on April 15, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 15, 2003.

 

On May 5, 2003, Dotster, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <ahoo.com>, <ahoos.com>, <hahoo.com>, <hahoos.com>, <hojob.com>, <hojobs.com>, <hojobs.net>, <hojobs.org>, <uahoo.net>, <uahoo.org>, <wwwhahoo.com>, <wwwyoo.com>, <yehoo.com>, <yehoo.org>, <yehooo.com> and <yohhoo.com> are registered with Dotster, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dotster, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotster, Inc. 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 May 5, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 27, 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@ahoo.com, postmaster@ahoos.com, postmaster@hahoo.com, postmaster@hahoos.com, postmaster@hojob.com, postmaster@hojobs.com, postmaster@hojobs.net, postmaster@hojobs.org, postmaster@uahoo.net, postmaster@uahoo.org, postmaster@wwwhahoo.com, postmaster@wwwyoo.com, postmaster@yehoo.com, postmaster@yehoo.org, postmaster@yehooo.com and postmaster@yohhoo.com by e-mail.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 8, 2003.

 

Complainant filed its Additional Response on May 13, 2003.

 

Respondent’s Additional Response was filed May 14, 2003.

 

On May 16, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

1.   The disputed domain names <ahoo.com>, <ahoos.com>, <hahoo.com>, <hahoos.com>, <uahoo.net>, <uahoo.org>, <wwwhahoo.com>, <wwwyoo.com>, <yehoo.com>, <yehoo.org>, <yehooo.com and <yohhoo.com> are typographical misspellings of and confusingly similar to Complainant Yahoo!s famous and federally registered YAHOO! trademark and trade name.

2.   The disputed domain names <hojob.com>, <hojobs.com>, <hojobs.net> and <hojobs.org> are confusingly similar to Complainant HotJobs’ famous HOTJOBS trademark and trade name.

3.   Respondent does not have any rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names by virtue of the fact that each trades on the goodwill of Complainant’s YAHOO! and HOTJOBS marks, and Respondents’ use of those marks is unauthorized.  Respondent is not and never have been a licensee of Complainant.  Respondent is not and never has been otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the YAHOO! or HOTJOBS marks.

4.   Respondents’ registration and use of the Domain Names meet the bad faith requirement described in Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP.

 

B. Respondent

 

1.   The disputed names are not confusingly similar.

 

2.   Respondent does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

3.   Respondents’ registration and use of the domain names are not in bad faith.

 

C. Additional Submissions

 

A. Complainant

 

1.   Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to and a typographical misspelling of the YAHOO! mark, HOTJOBS mark, and/or the URL www.yahoo.com, and Respondent has not refuted those facts.  Indeed, Respondent has a history of registering domain names comprised of typographical misspellings of trademarks owned by third parties, and numerous UDRP Panels have ordered the transfer of those domain names.

 

2.   The number of keystrokes between a domain name and a trademark is not the test for confusingly similarity under the UDRP.  Confusing similarity is demonstrated by comparing the domain name to the trademark at issue in appearance, pronunciation, or meaning.

 

3.   Respondent appears to argue that the Domain Names are not confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! and HOTJOBS marks because he has “not received one single complaint from Complainant that any of its users were mistaken[ly] directed to Respondent’s website.”  (Response p. 6.)   Respondent’s argument has no merit, however, because the UDRP does not require proof of actual confusion.

 

4.   Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Names.

 

B.  Respondent

 

1.   Many of the Domain Names were registered and used as early as 1997.

 

2.   ahoo.com is a Persian word meaning “deer”.

 

3.   Networksolutions lost all ownership information from December 1999 to February 2002.

 

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy.  The relief should be granted, and each of the disputed domain names be transferred in accordance with the relief requested in the complaint.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)    the 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainants, Yahoo! and HotJobs.com (collectively, the “Complainant”), hold numerous registrations for the YAHOO! and HOTJOBS marks. Specifically, Complainant holds U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 2,273,128 for the YAHOO! mark registered on the Principal Register on August 24, 1999, and Canadian registration number TMA570701 for HOTJOBS.COM registered on November 14, 2002. See The Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Brian Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. MacLeod, D2000-0662 (WIPO Sept. 19, 2000) (finding that the failure of Complainant to register all possible domain names that surround its substantive mark does not hinder Complainant’s rights in the mark.  “Trademark owners are not required to create ‘libraries’ of domain names in order to protect themselves”).

 

The panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the YAHOO! and HOTJOBS.COM marks because Respondent’s domain names incorporate typographical errors into the marks. See Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s website, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between Complainant and Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the deliberate introduction of errors or changes, such as the addition of a fourth “w” or the omission of periods or other such generic typos do not change Respondent’s infringement on a core trademark held by Complainant); see also Compaq Info. Techs. Group, L.P. v. Seocho , FA 103879 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (finding that the domain name <compq.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMPAQ mark because the omission of the letter “a” in the domain name does not significantly change the overall impression of the mark)

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

The Panel finds that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names by virtue of the fact that Respondent is trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s famous YAHOO! and HOTJOBS.COM marks. See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion with Complainant's website and marks, its use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use); see also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent uses the subject domain names to divert Internet users to various commercial websites located at <musicplus.com>, <pata.com>, <sexhorse.com> and <iwantgod.com>. The proof indicates that Respondent’s websites typically generate two pop-up advertisements, one of which states “the domain name you typed is for sale.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s intent to sell its rights in the infringing domain names suggests Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding Respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use); see also Skipton Bldg. Soc’y v. Colman, D2000-1217 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (finding no rights in a domain name where Respondent offered the infringing domain name for sale and the evidence suggests that anyone approaching this domain name through the worldwide web would be "misleadingly" diverted to other sites).

 

Complainant states that Respondent’s use of the YAHOO! and HOTJOBS.COM marks in the domain names is unauthorized, and that Respondent has never been a licensee of Complainant. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Mahoney, FA 112559 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2002) (finding Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to solicit pharmaceutical orders without a license or authorization from Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain names to redirect Internet users to unauthorized websites tarnishes Complainant’s YAHOO! and HOTJOBS.COM marks. See MatchNet plc v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services to use a domain name for commercial gain by attracting Internet users to third party sites offering sexually explicit and pornographic material, where such use is calculated to mislead consumers and tarnish Complainant’s mark); see also Rittenhouse Dev. Co. v. Domains For Sale, Inc., FA 105211 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 8, 2002) (finding that, by linking the confusingly similar domain name to an “Abortion is Murder” website and subsequently asking for compensation beyond out-of-pocket costs to transfer the domain name, Respondent has not demonstrated a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent’s allegations that it used the domain names in connection with the <newsguys.com> domain name and corresponding website, are incredible. The proof indicates only four of the Domain Names were registered and could have been used by Respondent prior to December 19, 1999.  Second, prior to December 1999,  Respondent did not use those four Domain Names for his “newsguys.com” website as he alleges.  The unrefuted evidence indicates that Respondent used <ahoo.com>, <hahoo.com> and <yehoo.com> for competing, pornographic and “under construction” websites.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent does not have any legitimate interests in the subject domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the domain names constitutes bad faith because Respondent was on notice of Complainant’ rights in the famous YAHOO! and HOTJOBS.COM marks prior to seeking registration of the domain names. See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Ashby, D2000-0241 (WIPO June 14, 2000) (finding that the fame of the YAHOO! mark negated any plausible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the <yahooventures.com> domain name); see also Paws, Inc. v. Odie, FA 96206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2001) ("Given the uniqueness and the extreme international popularity of the [ODIE] mark, the Respondent knew or should have known that registering the domain name in question would infringe upon the Complainant's goodwill").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the domain names satisfy the bad faith element of Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). Complainant states, and the evidence so indicates, that  “Respondent registered the Domain Names primarily to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer them for valuable consideration.” See Am. Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent offered domain names for sale); see also Banca Popolare Friuladria S.p.A. v. Zago, D2000-0793 (WIPO Sept. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent offered the domain names for sale); see also Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith”).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the domain names meet the bad faith element articulated by Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Specifically, Respondent’s registration of sixteen YAHOO!-formative and/or HOTJOBS-formative domain names that are the subject of this dispute constitutes a pattern of infringing bad faith registration of trademark-related domain names. See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also YAHOO! Inc. v. Syrynx, Inc., D2000-1675 (WIPO Jan. 30, 2001) (finding a bad faith pattern pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) in Respondent's registration of two domain names incorporating Complainant's YAHOO! mark).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because Respondent is disrupting Complainant’s business. See Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2000) (concluding that domain names were registered and used in bad faith where Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market area); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business).

 

Lastly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s actions constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The evidence indicates that Respondent uses the infringing domain names to attract Internet users to its commercial websites; thus, Respondent is opportunistically trading on the goodwill and fame of Complainant’s YAHOO! and HOTJOBS.COM marks. See 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); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered and used an infringing domain name to attract users to a website sponsored by Respondent); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users seeking Complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain names <ahoo.com>, <ahoos.com>, <hahoo.com>, <hahoos.com>, <uahoo.net>, <uahoo.org>, <wwwhahoo.com>, <wwwyoo.com>, <yehoo.com>, <yehoo.org>, <yehooo.com and <yohhoo.com> be TRANSFERRED to Yahoo! Inc., and that the domain names <hojob.com>, <hojobs.com>, <hojobs.net> and <hojobs.org> be TRANSFERRED to HotJobs.com, Ltd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

John J. Upchurch , Panelist
Dated: May 30, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page