Little League Baseball, Inc. v. Genre Bend
Claim Number: FA1512001650894
Complainant is Little League Baseball, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Courtney P. Adams of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Genre Bend (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <iamlittleleague.org> and <iamlittleleague.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 4, 2015; the Forum received payment on December 4, 2015.
On December 4, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <iamlittleleague.org> and <iamlittleleague.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 8, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 28, 2015 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@iamlittleleague.org, postmaster@iamlittleleague.com. Also on December 8, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 29, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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" 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 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
Complainant has exclusive right to use and authorize others to use the LITTLE LEAGUE mark as granted by the United States Congress. 36 U.S.C. § 130506. Respondent’s disputed domain names <iamlittleleague.org> and <iamlittleleague.com> are confusingly similar to the LITTLE LEAGUE mark as the domains merely add the generic top-level domains (“gTLD”) “.com” or “.org” and the generic terms “I” and “am.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names or authorized to use the LITTLE LEAGUE marks in any manner. Further, neither the inactive use of the <iamlittleleague.com> domain or the parked website on <iamlittleleague.org> constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent’s bad faith is evident from Respondent’s attempt to sell the disputed domain name for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Respondent’s bad faith is also demonstrated through registration of multiple domains reflecting Complainant’s LITTLE LEAGUE mark. Finally, based on the fame and longevity of Complainant’s LITTLE LEAGUE mark it is inconceivable that Respondent registered the domains without knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Little League Baseball, Inc. of Williamsport, PA, USA. Complainant is the owner of the registration for the mark LITTLE LEAGUE, and variations thereon which constitute the family of Little League marks, that it has continuously used since at least as early as 1950 in connection with its provision of goods and services in the operation of planned, sanctioned baseball leagues for youths.
Respondent is Genre Bend of California, USA. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Scottsdale, AZ, USA. The Panel notes that the disputed domain names were created on or about August 22, 2015.
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 claims that it has exclusive rights in the LITTLE LEAGUE mark as granted by Congress, 36 U.S.C. § 130506. Complainant also claims to have rights in the LITTLE LEAGUE mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,049,641, registered October 5, 1976). Prior panels have held that a federal statute recognizing a complainant’s exclusive rights in a mark is sufficient to demonstrate a complainant’s rights in a mark. See Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Ritchey, FA 128817 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 20, 2003) (finding that the Olympic Amateur Sports Act, granting the complainant exclusive rights in the Olympic symbol and the word Olympic, preempts any chance for the respondent to claim rights or legitimate interests in an infringing domain name). Prior panels have similarly held that USPTO registration of a mark demonstrates a complainant’s rights in the registered mark. See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (concluding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO). The Panel here finds that Complainant has established its rights in the LITTLE LEAGUE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s domains <iamlittleleague.org> and <iamlittleleague.com> are confusingly similar to the LITTLE LEAGUE mark in which Complainant asserts rights. The disputed domains include the entire LITTLE LEAGUE mark and add a gTLD and the generic terms “I” and “am.” Past panels have found that the presence of gTLDs such as “.org” or “.com” is irrelevant when conducting an analysis of confusing similarity. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). Similarly, generic terms do not distinguish a domain from a mark to which the terms are attached. See Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Sadler, FA 250236 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2004) (finding the addition of generic terms to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark in the respondent’s <shop4harrypotter.com> and <shopforharrypotter.com> domain names failed to alleviate the confusing similarity between the mark and the domain names). The Panel here finds that Respondent’s <iamlittleleague.org> and <iamlittleleague.com> domains are confusingly similar to the LITTLE LEAGUE mark.
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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). The Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant claims that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names or authorized to use the LITTLE LEAGUE marks in any manner. WHOIS information associated with the disputed domains indicates that Respondent registered the domains using the name “Genre Bend,” which does not resemble the domains. Previous panels have held that a respondent may be deemed not commonly known by a disputed domain based on WHOIS information and a lack of evidence in the record to the contrary. 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). The Panel here finds that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent does not use the disputed domains in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use. Respondent’s <iamlittleleague.com> resolves to an inactive website displaying the message “website coming soon!”. Respondent’s <iamlittleleague.org> domain resolves to a generic parked webpage displaying various click-through links with titles such as “Better Baseball Marietta,” “1 Tip of a flat Belly,” and “Be an All Star at LINX.” Past panels have found that neither inactive use, nor resolving to a parked website, is considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Charles Letts & Co Ltd. v. Citipublications, FA 692150 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s parking of a domain name containing the complainant’s mark for the respondent’s commercial gain did not satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel here finds that neither of Respondent’s disputed domains is used within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As the Respondent has not provided a response to this action, the Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant claims that Respondent’s attempt to sell the disputed domain names for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs demonstrates bad faith. After Complainant contacted Respondent about the potential infringing nature of the domains Respondent replied, “You can buy it for $25,000 other then that I have another offer I will not give up this domain and if you want it you buy it.” Complainant replied indicating an unwillingness to buy the domain to which the Respondent raised the price to $50,000.00. Previous panels have found a respondent to have acted in bad faith where the respondent offered a domain for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs. See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that the respondent registered and was using the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where it offered it for sale for far more than its estimated out-of-pocket costs it incurred in initially registering the disputed domain name). The Panel here finds that Respondent has acted in bad faith.
Complainant next contends that Respondent’s bad faith is evident from Respondent’s registration of the multiple domains at issue in this case reflecting the LITTLE LEAGUE mark. Prior panels have held that a respondent registering multiple domains that reflect another’s mark has acted in bad faith. 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)). The Panel here finds Respondent’s activities support a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
As the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <iamlittleleague.org> and <iamlittleleague.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: January 12, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page