DECISION

 

America Online, Inc. v. Pro-Life Domains aka Pro-Life Domains, Inc.

Claim Number:  FA0306000161565

 

PARTIES

Complainant is America Online, Inc., Dulles, Virginia (“Complainant”) represented by James R. Davis, II, of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn.  Respondent is Pro-Life Domains, Inc., Bronx, New York (“Respondent”).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <supportataol.com> and <americaoliine.com>, registered with Enom, 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 June 4, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 5, 2003.

 

On June 4, 2003, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <supportataol.com> and <americaoliine.com> are registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 June 9, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 30, 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@supportataol.com and postmaster@americaoliine.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 July 9, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <supportataol.com> and <americaoliine.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s family of marks.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <supportataol.com> and <americaoliine.com> domain names.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <supportataol.com> and <americaoliine.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, America Online, Inc., is the holder of numerous trademark registrations worldwide for the AOL family of marks.  Complainant holds many registrations for the AOL mark, including U.S. Patent and Trademark Registration Nos. 1,977,731 and 1,984,337, which were registered on June 4, 1996 and July 2, 1996, respectively.  Complainant also holds numerous trademark registrations worldwide for the AMERICA ONLINE mark, including U.S. Patent and Trademark Registration No. 1,618,148, which was registered on October 16, 1990.  In addition, Complainant holds U.S. Patent and Trademark Registration Nos. 2,325,291 and 2,325,292, which were both registered on March 7, 2000 for the AOL.COM mark. 

 

Complainant began using the AOL and AMERICA ONLINE marks as early as 1989 and the AOL.COM mark as early at 1992 in connection with computer online services and other Internet-related services.  Complainant uses the AOL.COM mark and the domain name AMERICAONLINE.COM in connection with its official Internet web site.  Complainant also uses the AOL and AMERICA ONLINE marks extensively at its official web site to promote its services.

 

With approximately thirty-five million subscribers, Complainant operates the most widely-used interactive online service in the world.  Each year, millions of Internet users worldwide obtain services offered under the AOL family of marks.  Millions more are exposed to Complainant’s family of marks through advertising and promotion. 

 

Respondent registered the <supportataol.com> domain name on March 3, 2003, and the <americaoliine.com> domain name on March 12, 2003.  Respondent is using the disputed domain names to route Internet users to the <abortioninsmurder.org> domain name web page which portrays graphic images of aborted fetuses and promotes various organizations and entities that provide services related to birth control, adoption, counseling, etc. 

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has established rights in the AOL, AMERICA ONLINE and AOL.COM marks through registration of the marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and continuous use of the marks in commerce.  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 BroadcastAmerica.com, Inc. v. Quo, DTV2000-0001 (WIPO Oct. 4, 2000) (finding that Complainant has common law rights in BROADCASTAMERICA.COM, given extensive use of that mark to identify Complainant as the source of broadcast services over the Internet, and evidence that there is wide recognition with the BROADCASTAMERICA.COM mark among Internet users as to the source of broadcast services).

 

Respondent’s <supportataol.com> and <americaoliine.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s family of marks.  Respondent added the generic words “support” and “at” to Complainant’s famous and distinctive AOL mark resulting in the <supportataol.com> domain name.  In addition, Respondent’s <americaoliine.com> domain name is merely a misspelling of Complainant’s famous AMERICA ONLINE mark.  Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are not sufficiently distinguishable from Complainant’s family of marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See America Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <go2AOL.com> was confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark): see also America Online Inc. v. Neticq.com Ltd., D2000-1606 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that the addition of the generic word “Net” to Complainant’s ICQ mark, makes the <neticq.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark); see also America Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name, <americanonline.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous AMERICA ONLINE mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Respondent has failed to show any circumstances that could substantiate its rights or legitimate interests in the <supportataol.com> and <americaoliine.com> domain names because Respondent has failed to submit a response in this proceeding.  In the absence of a response, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations contained in the complaint as true.  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 Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent fails to respond).    

 

There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by either of the disputed domain names.  Both the names given in the WHOIS contact information for the <supportataol.com> and <americaoliine.com> domain names and the fame surrounding Complainant’s family of marks support the Panel’s inference that Respondent is not commonly known by either of the disputed domain names.  See 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); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001) (finding sufficient proof that Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of Complainant’s well-established use of the mark).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in either the <supportataol.com> domain name or the <americaoliine.com> domain name.  Respondent is taking advantage of Complaianant’s famous family of marks by using the disputed domain names to attract Internet users and then reroute them to the web page hosted at the <abortionismurder.org> domain name for its own financial gain.  Complainant has no connection with the anti-abortion web page that Respondent is redirecting Internet users to.  In addition, Respondent is tarnishing Complainant family of marks by subjecting unwary Internet users to a website that advocates a controversial issue and features graphic photographs of aborted fetuses.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names does not establish a bona fide offering of goods or service under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See The Am. Nat’l.  Red Cross v. Domains a/k/a Best Domains a/k/a John Berry, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (Respondent used a disputed domain name to divert internet users to websites not associated with or authorized by Complainant, such as an anti-abortion website.  “Appropriating Complainant’s mark for these purposes cannot equate to a bona fide offering of goods and services, and does not evidence legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name”); 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 Respondent has not demonstrated a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent registered and is using the <supportataol.com> and <americaoliine.com> domain names in bad faith.  Once Respondent attracts Internet users, it redirects them to the <abortionismurder.org> domain name which displays politically charged content that is completely unrelated to Complainant’s business.  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain names containing Complainant’s well-known family of marks in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See McClatchy Management Services, Inc. v. Please DON'T Kill Your Baby a/k/a William and Mark Purdy II, Willaim S. Purdy, FA 153541 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2003) (finding “[b]y intentionally taking advantage of the goodwill surrounding Complainant’s mark to further its own political agenda, Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith”); see also See Rittenhouse Dev. Co. v. Domains For Sale, Inc., FA 105211 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 8, 2002) (finding that “when a party registers and uses a domain name that incorporates a well-known mark and connects the domain name with a website that depicts offensive images,” the party has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.  

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <supportataol.com> and <americaoliine.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

John J. Upchurch , Panelist

Dated:  July 23, 2003

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page


 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page