Diners Club International Ltd. v. Domain
Admin******It's all in the name******
Claim Number: FA0305000156839
Complainant is Diners Club International Ltd., Chicago, IL (“Complainant”) represented by Paul D. McGrady, of Ladas
& Parry, Digital Brands Practice. Respondent is Domain Admin******It's all in the name*****, LIC, NY
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <wwwdinersclub.com>,
registered with Enom, Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.
Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on May 8, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on May 9, 2003.
On
May 15, 2003, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wwwdinersclub.com> is registered
with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 16, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
June 5, 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@wwwdinersclub.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
June 11, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <wwwdinersclub.com>
domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name
in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Diners Club International Ltd., is the owner of many tradmark registrations
incorporating elements of the DINERS CLUB mark, including the DINERS CLUB mark
itself (e.g., U.S. Reg. No. 828,013,
registered on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on
April 25, 1967). Complainant uses its mark in connection with, inter alia, credit card and related
services and a program of restaurant discounts and dining guides.
Respondent,
Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, registered the <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name
on April 16, 2000, and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s
DINERS CLUB mark for any purpose. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to
host a website which informs Internet users that the disputed domain name “is
available for lease or sale!” The disputed domain name also provides a limited
list of links to other websites, with titles such as “Cars,” “Finance &
Mortgage” and “Buy Candles.”
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 rights in the DINERS CLUB mark through registration of the mark on
the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as
through widespread and continuous use of the mark in commerce.
Respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark. Respondent’s addition
of the world-wide web abbreviation (“www”) as a prefix to Complainant’s mark
exemplifies the type of situation that the Policy was designed to rectify. Such
a domain name is confusingly similar to the mark it attempts to modify under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp.
v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that
Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage
of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name)
that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. S1A, FA 128683 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Dec. 6, 2002) (holding confusing similarity has been established because
the prefix "www" does not sufficiently differentiate the
<wwwneimanmarcus.com> domain name from Complainant's NEIMAN-MARCUS mark).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <wwwdinersclub.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has
the initial burden of showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests
in the <wwwdinersclub.com> domain
name. Complainant is able to meet this burden, hence shifting it to Respondent,
by demonstrating that Respondent does not qualify for the protetions afforded
domain name registrants under the UDRP outlined in Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii). See G.D.
Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding
that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests with respect to 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’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name
is a typosquatted version of Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, evidence in and of
itself that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name vis á vis Complainant. See
Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues
v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (stating that
“[t]yposquatting as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to
another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services,
whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site”); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Azra
Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests where Respondent used the typosquatted
<wwwdewalt.com> domain name to divert Internet users to a search engine
webpage, and failed to respond to the Complaint).
Respondent’s
conduct, purporting to sell its domain name registration to any interested
buyers, is also evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name. Sale of a domain name registration can be
considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services in some
circumstances, but not in those where the domain name is obviously dependant
upon the goodwill surrounding Complainant’s registered mark. Hence, Respondent
would not be able to avail itself of the provisions of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or
(iii). 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 Kinko’s Inc. v. eToll, Inc., FA 94447 (Nat. Arb. Forum May
27, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name where it appeared that the domain name was registered for ultimate
use by Complainant).
Finally, there
is no evidence before the Panel to rebut the conclusion that Respondent, known
as “******It’s all in the name******,” is “commonly known by” the disputed
domain name. Thus, Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent. See Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd.,
FA 139718 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (“Considering the nonsensical nature
of the [<wwwmedline.com>] domain name and its similarity to Complainant’s
registered and distinctive [MEDLINE] mark, the Panel concludes that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
does not apply to Respondent”); see also
Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating
“nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly
known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶
4(c)(ii) does not apply).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
<wwwdinersclub.com> domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As stated above,
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name. Moreover, Respondent
registered the domain name for the purpose of marketing its registration for
profit. As the sole value of the domain name is dictated by its relation to
Complainant’s registered DINERS CLUB mark, the Panel infers that Respondent
registered the domain name for the primary purpose of selling its registration
to Complainant, evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See
Pocatello Idaho Auditorium Dist. v. CES Marketing Group, Inc., FA 103186
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002) ("[w]hat makes an offer to sell a domain
[name] bad faith is some accompanying evidence that the domain name was
registered because of its value that is in some way dependent on the trademark
of another, and then an offer to sell it to the trademark owner or a competitor
of the trademark owner"); see also
Educ. Testing Serv. v. TOEFL, D2000-0044 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2000) (finding that
a general offer of sale combined with no legitimate use of the domain name
constitutes registration and use in bad faith).
Further evidence
of Respondent’s bad faith can be deduced from the nature of the domain name
itself. Registering a domain name which entirely incorporates a famous mark
with the addition of the “www” prefix evidences not only actual knowledge of a
trademark holder’s rights in that mark but an intent to ensnare Internet users
who forget to type the period between the “www” and a second-level domain name
while attempting to reach Complainant’s URL. Such knowing registration and
deceiving use of a domain name are evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). See RE/MAX Int’l., Inc. v.
Seocho, FA 142046 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2003) (inferring that
Respondent’s registration of the <wwwremax.com> domain name,
incorporating Complainant’s entire mark, was done with actual notice of
Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the infringing domain
name, evidencing bad faith); see also
Black & Decker Corp. v. Azra Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3,
2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare
those individuals who forget to type the period after the “www” portion of [a]
web-address,” evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad
faith).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
<wwwdinersclub.com> domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <wwwdinersclub.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
June 23, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page