Finish Line, Inc. and its subsidiary Spike's Holdings, Inc. v. Chek Kin Yau / Traffic Investments
Claim Number: FA1409001577966
Complainant is Finish Line, Inc. and its subsidiary Spike's Holdings, Inc. (“Com-plainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Chek Kin Yau / Traffic Investments (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <inishline.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electron-ically on September 2, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 2, 2014.
On September 10, 2014, Moniker Online Services LLC confirmed by e-mail mes-sage addressed to the National Arbitration Forum that the <inishline.com> do-main name is registered with Moniker Online Services LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services LLC 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 September 10, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, in-cluding a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 30, 2014 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, adminis-trative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@inishline.com. Also on Septem-ber 10, 2014, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Re-spondent 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 that was in compliance with the requirements of the Policy and its associated Rules, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 2, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have this dispute de-cided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 Not-ices, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant holds a valid trademark registration for the FINISH LINE service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("the USPTO") (as Registry No. 1,772,105, registered May 18, 1993).
Complainant uses the FINISH LINE mark to market retail clothing, including athletic footwear.
Respondent registered the disputed <inishline.com> domain name on January 30, 2006.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FINISH LINE mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
The domain name resolves to a website featuring links to the websites of Com-plainant’s commercial competitors in the sale of athletic shoes and apparel.
Respondent likely receives click-through revenue from the operation of the website resolving from the domain name.
Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale.
Respondent’s use of the domain name disrupts Complainant’s business.
Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the FINISH LINE mark when it registered the domain name.
The <inishline.com> domain name is an instance of typo-squatting.
Respondent both registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding which is com-pliant with the requirements of the Policy and its associated Rules. However, in an e-mail message addressed to the National Arbitration Forum, Respondent has recited as follows: “Provide your registrar details and I’ll push the domain.”
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instruct this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accord-ance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions (see, for example, Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004; see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 24, 2005)).
DECISION
Respondent’s does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, and, in particular it does not contest Complainant’s request that the <inishline.com> domain name be transferred to Complainant. Rather, Respondent has indicated in writing an intention that the domain name be “push”(ed) (i.e.: transferred) to Complainant. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.
It is, therefore, Ordered that the <inishline.com>> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: October 6, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page