TD Ameritrade IP Company, Inc. v. Peter Smith
Claim Number: FA1412001593710
Complainant is TD Ameritrade IP Company, Inc. (“Complainant”), Nebraska, USA. Respondent is Peter Smith (“Respondent”), Isle of Man.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The disputed domain names are <ddameritrade.com>, <hinkorswim.com>, <hthinkorswim.com>, <rhinkorswim.com>, <rthinkorswim.com>, <tdaaeritrade.com>, <tdameiitrade.com>, <tdameriirade.com>, <tdameritaade.com>, <tdameritadre.com>, <tdameritraae.com>, <tdameritrdde.com>, <tdameritrdea.com>, <tdameritrrde.com>, <tdameritrsade.com>, <tdammritrade.com>, <tddmeritrade.com>, <tdmmeritrade.com>, <tghinkorswim.com>, <tginkorswim.com>, <thginkorswim.com>, <thhinkorswim.com>, <thibkorswim.com>, <thibnkorswim.com>, <thihnkorswim.com>, <thiinkorswim.com>, <thiknorswim.com>, <thimnkorswim.com>, <thinbkorswim.com>, <thinikorswim.com>, <thinjkorswim.com>, <thinmkorswim.com>, <thinjorswim.com>, <thinkiorswim.com>, <thinkjorswim.com>, <thinkkorswim.com>, <thinklorswim.com>, <thinknorswim.com>, <thinkoerswim.com>, <thinkoirswim.com>, <thinkokrswim.com>, <thinkoorswim.com>, <thinkoprswim.com>, <thinkoraswim.com>, <thinkordswim.com>, <thinkordwim.com>, <thinkoreswim.com>, <thinkoroswim.com>, <thinkorrswim.com>, <thinkorsawim.com>, <thinkorsdwim.com>, <thinkorsewim.com>, <thinkorsqim.com>, <thinkorsqwim.com>, <thinkorsrwim.com>, <thinkorsswim.com>, <thinkorsweim.com>, <thinkorswiim.com>, <thinkorswimi.com>, <thinkorswimn.com>, <thinkorswiom.com>, <thinkorswium.com>, <thinkorswiwm.com>, <thinkorswmi.com>, <thinkorswoim.com>, <thinkorswqim.com>, <thinkorswsim.com>, <thinkorswuim.com>, <thinkorswum.com>, <thinkorswwim.com>, <thinkortswim.com>, <thinkorwim.com>, <thinkosrwim.com>, <thinkotrswim.com>, <thinkporswim.com>, <thinkprswim.com>, <thinlkorswim.com>, <thinnkorswim.com>, <thinokrswim.com>, <thionkorswim.com>, <thiunkorswim.com>, <thjinkorswim.com>, <thoinkorswim.com>, <thtinkorswim.com>, <thuinkorswim.com>, <thunkorswim.com>, <tihnkorswim.com>, <tjhinkorswim.com>, <tjinkorswim.com>, <trhinkorswim.com>, <tthinkorswim.com>, <tyhinkorswim.com>, <yhinkorswim.com>, <ythinkorswim.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 5, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 5, 2014.
On December 8, 2014, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ddameritrade.com>, <hinkorswim.com>, <hthinkorswim.com>, <rhinkorswim.com>, <rthinkorswim.com>, <tdaaeritrade.com>, <tdameiitrade.com>, <tdameriirade.com>, <tdameritaade.com>, <tdameritadre.com>, <tdameritraae.com>, <tdameritrdde.com>, <tdameritrdea.com>, <tdameritrrde.com>, <tdameritrsade.com>, <tdammritrade.com>, <tddmeritrade.com>, <tdmmeritrade.com>, <tghinkorswim.com>, <tginkorswim.com>, <thginkorswim.com>, <thhinkorswim.com>, <thibkorswim.com>, <thibnkorswim.com>, <thihnkorswim.com>, <thiinkorswim.com>, <thiknorswim.com>, <thimnkorswim.com>, <thinbkorswim.com>, <thinikorswim.com>, <thinjkorswim.com>, <thinmkorswim.com>, <thinjorswim.com>, <thinkiorswim.com>, <thinkjorswim.com>, <thinkkorswim.com>, <thinklorswim.com>, <thinknorswim.com>, <thinkoerswim.com>, <thinkoirswim.com>, <thinkokrswim.com>, <thinkoorswim.com>, <thinkoprswim.com>, <thinkoraswim.com>, <thinkordswim.com>, <thinkordwim.com>, <thinkoreswim.com>, <thinkoroswim.com>, <thinkorrswim.com>, <thinkorsawim.com>, <thinkorsdwim.com>, <thinkorsewim.com>, <thinkorsqim.com>, <thinkorsqwim.com>, <thinkorsrwim.com>, <thinkorsswim.com>, <thinkorsweim.com>, <thinkorswiim.com>, <thinkorswimi.com>, <thinkorswimn.com>, <thinkorswiom.com>, <thinkorswium.com>, <thinkorswiwm.com>, <thinkorswmi.com>, <thinkorswoim.com>, <thinkorswqim.com>, <thinkorswsim.com>, <thinkorswuim.com>, <thinkorswum.com>, <thinkorswwim.com>, <thinkortswim.com>, <thinkorwim.com>, <thinkosrwim.com>, <thinkotrswim.com>, <thinkporswim.com>, <thinkprswim.com>, <thinlkorswim.com>, <thinnkorswim.com>, <thinokrswim.com>, <thionkorswim.com>, <thiunkorswim.com>, <thjinkorswim.com>, <thoinkorswim.com>, <thtinkorswim.com>, <thuinkorswim.com>, <thunkorswim.com>, <tihnkorswim.com>, <tjhinkorswim.com>, <tjinkorswim.com>, <trhinkorswim.com>, <tthinkorswim.com>, <tyhinkorswim.com>, <yhinkorswim.com>, <ythinkorswim.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 December 11, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 31, 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, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ddameritrade.com, postmaster@hinkorswim.com, postmaster@hthinkorswim.com, postmaster@rhinkorswim.com, postmaster@rthinkorswim.com, postmaster@tdaaeritrade.com, postmaster@tdameiitrade.com, postmaster@tdameriirade.com, postmaster@tdameritaade.com, postmaster@tdameritadre.com, postmaster@tdameritraae.com, postmaster@tdameritrdde.com, postmaster@tdameritrdea.com, postmaster@tdameritrrde.com, postmaster@tdameritrsade.com, postmaster@tdammritrade.com, postmaster@tddmeritrade.com, postmaster@tdmmeritrade.com, postmaster@tghinkorswim.com, postmaster@tginkorswim.com, postmaster@thginkorswim.com, postmaster@thhinkorswim.com, postmaster@thibkorswim.com, postmaster@thibnkorswim.com, postmaster@thihnkorswim.com, postmaster@thiinkorswim.com, postmaster@thiknorswim.com, postmaster@thimnkorswim.com, postmaster@thinbkorswim.com, postmaster@thinikorswim.com, postmaster@thinjkorswim.com, postmaster@thinmkorswim.com, postmaster@thinjorswim.com, postmaster@thinkiorswim.com, postmaster@thinkjorswim.com, postmaster@thinkkorswim.com, postmaster@thinklorswim.com, postmaster@thinknorswim.com, postmaster@thinkoerswim.com, postmaster@thinkoirswim.com, postmaster@thinkokrswim.com, postmaster@thinkoorswim.com, postmaster@thinkoprswim.com, postmaster@thinkoraswim.com, postmaster@thinkordswim.com, postmaster@thinkordwim.com, postmaster@thinkoreswim.com, postmaster@thinkoroswim.com, postmaster@thinkorrswim.com, postmaster@thinkorsawim.com, postmaster@thinkorsdwim.com, postmaster@thinkorsewim.com, postmaster@thinkorsqim.com, postmaster@thinkorsqwim.com, postmaster@thinkorsrwim.com, postmaster@thinkorsswim.com, postmaster@thinkorsweim.com, postmaster@thinkorswiim.com, postmaster@thinkorswimi.com, postmaster@thinkorswimn.com, postmaster@thinkorswiom.com, postmaster@thinkorswium.com, postmaster@thinkorswiwm.com, postmaster@thinkorswmi.com, postmaster@thinkorswoim.com, postmaster@thinkorswqim.com, postmaster@thinkorswsim.com, postmaster@thinkorswuim.com, postmaster@thinkorswum.com, postmaster@thinkorswwim.com, postmaster@thinkortswim.com, postmaster@thinkorwim.com, postmaster@thinkosrwim.com, postmaster@thinkotrswim.com, postmaster@thinkporswim.com, postmaster@thinkprswim.com, postmaster@thinlkorswim.com, postmaster@thinnkorswim.com, postmaster@thinokrswim.com, postmaster@thionkorswim.com, postmaster@thiunkorswim.com, postmaster@thjinkorswim.com, postmaster@thoinkorswim.com, postmaster@thtinkorswim.com, postmaster@thuinkorswim.com, postmaster@thunkorswim.com, postmaster@tihnkorswim.com, postmaster@tjhinkorswim.com, postmaster@tjinkorswim.com, postmaster@trhinkorswim.com, postmaster@tthinkorswim.com, postmaster@tyhinkorswim.com, postmaster@yhinkorswim.com, postmaster@ythinkorswim.com. Also on December 11, 2014, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 January 8, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TD AMERITRADE or THINKORSWIM marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
3. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
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."
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.
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.”).
Complainant uses the TD AMERITRADE and THINKORSWIM marks in connection with its business in computer software involving financial information, investment, and trading. Complainant holds USPTO registrations for both marks. Complainant argues that such registrations are sufficient to establish rights in the marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) requirements, even though Respondent resides in the Isle of Man. Complainant’s argument is supported by previous UDRP decision. See Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO registrations satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TD AMERITRADE and THINKOR SWIM marks because Respondent has simply misspelled the marks, and added the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Previous panels have generally found that a domain name differing from a mark by a simple misspelling does not escape confusing similarity and that the affixation of a gTLD is irrelevant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. 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); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TD AMERITRADE or THINKORSWIM marks.
The Panel finds that complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information identifies “Peter Smith” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Complainant states that Respondent is not authorized to use its TD AMERITRADE or THINKORSWIM marks. Given the lack of evidence to infer otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).
Complainant also argues that Respondent has not provided any bona fide offering of goods or services, or made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Complainant claims that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to the <marketsworld.com> domain, and offer competing services to those of Complainant. Prior panels have refused to find a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name where the respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer competing services. See Hale Prods., Inc. v. Hart Int’l Inc., FA 198031 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 2, 2003) (finding that Respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the <jawsoflife.com> domain name where it was being used to divert Internet users to the website for Phoenix Rescue Tools, one of Complainant’s direct competitors). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks a bona fide offering of goods or services, and does not have a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that the number of typo-squatted versions of Complainant’s trademarks provides evidence that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s registration of many domain names involving misspelled versions of Complainant’s marks indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See EPA European Pressphoto Agency B.V. v. Wilson, D2004-1012 (WIPO Feb. 9, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration of the <epa-photo.com>, <epaphoto.com> and <epaphotos.com> domain names was sufficient to constitute a pattern pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
Respondent uses the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to a website that offers services that compete with Complainant’s services. The Panel finds that this use disrupts Complainant’s business in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tapia, FA 328159 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (“Respondent is referring Internet traffic that seeks out the <aol.tv> domain name to a competitor’s news site. The Panel strongly finds that appropriating Complainant’s mark to refer customers seeking Complainant to Complainant’s competitors is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent is also engaged in classic typosquatting, as the disputed domain names are just simple misspellings of Complainant’s TD AMERITRADE and FISHORSWIM marks. Typosquatting constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use of the <microssoft.com> domain name as it merely misspelled the complainant’s MICROSOFT mark).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered many misspelled versions of Complainant’s marks as domain names and thus it is inconceivable that Respondent registered the disputed domain names without knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the marks. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's marks and rights and thus registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name")."
The Panel finds that 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 <ddameritrade.com>, <hinkorswim.com>, <hthinkorswim.com>, <rhinkorswim.com>, <rthinkorswim.com>, <tdaaeritrade.com>, <tdameiitrade.com>, <tdameriirade.com>, <tdameritaade.com>, <tdameritadre.com>, <tdameritraae.com>, <tdameritrdde.com>, <tdameritrdea.com>, <tdameritrrde.com>, <tdameritrsade.com>, <tdammritrade.com>, <tddmeritrade.com>, <tdmmeritrade.com>, <tghinkorswim.com>, <tginkorswim.com>, <thginkorswim.com>, <thhinkorswim.com>, <thibkorswim.com>, <thibnkorswim.com>, <thihnkorswim.com>, <thiinkorswim.com>, <thiknorswim.com>, <thimnkorswim.com>, <thinbkorswim.com>, <thinikorswim.com>, <thinjkorswim.com>, <thinmkorswim.com>, <thinjorswim.com>, <thinkiorswim.com>, <thinkjorswim.com>, <thinkkorswim.com>, <thinklorswim.com>, <thinknorswim.com>, <thinkoerswim.com>, <thinkoirswim.com>, <thinkokrswim.com>, <thinkoorswim.com>, <thinkoprswim.com>, <thinkoraswim.com>, <thinkordswim.com>, <thinkordwim.com>, <thinkoreswim.com>, <thinkoroswim.com>, <thinkorrswim.com>, <thinkorsawim.com>, <thinkorsdwim.com>, <thinkorsewim.com>, <thinkorsqim.com>, <thinkorsqwim.com>, <thinkorsrwim.com>, <thinkorsswim.com>, <thinkorsweim.com>, <thinkorswiim.com>, <thinkorswimi.com>, <thinkorswimn.com>, <thinkorswiom.com>, <thinkorswium.com>, <thinkorswiwm.com>, <thinkorswmi.com>, <thinkorswoim.com>, <thinkorswqim.com>, <thinkorswsim.com>, <thinkorswuim.com>, <thinkorswum.com>, <thinkorswwim.com>, <thinkortswim.com>, <thinkorwim.com>, <thinkosrwim.com>, <thinkotrswim.com>, <thinkporswim.com>, <thinkprswim.com>, <thinlkorswim.com>, <thinnkorswim.com>, <thinokrswim.com>, <thionkorswim.com>, <thiunkorswim.com>, <thjinkorswim.com>, <thoinkorswim.com>, <thtinkorswim.com>, <thuinkorswim.com>, <thunkorswim.com>, <tihnkorswim.com>, <tjhinkorswim.com>, <tjinkorswim.com>, <trhinkorswim.com>, <tthinkorswim.com>, <tyhinkorswim.com>, <yhinkorswim.com>, <ythinkorswim.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: January 11, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page