The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft
Claim Number: FA1602001659101
Complainant is The Travelers Indemnity Company (“Complainant”), represented by Michael A. Bucci of The Travelers Indemnity Company, Connecticut, United States. Respondent is Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft (“Respondent”), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
REGISTRAR AND <TRAVELRS.COM> DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <travelrs.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 1, 2016; the Forum received payment on February 1, 2016.
On February 3, 2016, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <travelrs.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 February 5, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 2016 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@travelrs.com. Also on February 5, 2016, 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 March 2, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Complainant uses its TRAVELERS mark in connection with its insurance business. Complainant is one of the leading providers of personal property and casualty insurance in the United States. Complainant has registered the TRAVELERS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,611,053, registered August 28, 1990), which demonstrates Complainant’s rights in its mark.
2. The <travelrs.com> domain is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it is clearly a misspelling of Complainant’s mark, omitting only the letter “o” and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
3. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <travelrs.com> domain name.
4. First, Respondent is not commonly known by the <travelrs.com> domain name or any variant of Complainant’s mark. Second, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the <travelrs.com> domain name or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses its domain name to display third party links to products and services that are in direct competition with Complainant’s business.
5. Respondent has registered and is using the <travelrs.com> domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent uses the domain to host competing third party links, thereby engaging in conduct proscribed by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
6. Second, Respondent uses the domain to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Third, Respondent has engaged in the tactic of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who inadvertently omit the second letter “e” in Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the TRAVELERS mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRAVELERS mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <travelrs.com> domain name, and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
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 representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 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 its TRAVELERS mark in connection with its insurance business. Complainant is one of the leading providers of personal property and casualty insurance in the United States. Complainant has registered the TRAVELERS mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,611,053, registered August 28, 1990). Trademark registrations with the USPTO demonstrate a complainant’s rights in its mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), with respect to the geographic disparity of the parties. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”).
The <travelrs.com> domain is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it is clearly a misspelling of Complainant’s mark, omitting only the letter “o” and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” A domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark is confusingly similar to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See CEC Entm’t, Inc. v. Peppler, FA 104208 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2002) (finding that the <chuckcheese.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s CHUCK E. CHEESE mark because the domain name only differed from the mark by one letter). The affixation of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Countrywide Fin. Corp. v. Johnson & Sons Sys., FA 1073019 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2007) (holding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” was irrelevant). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <travelrs.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue in this proceeding. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <travelrs.com> domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <travelrs.com> domain name or any variant of Complainant’s mark. Further, Complainant argues that Respondent has no license or authorization to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information merely lists “Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft” as registrant and that Respondent has failed to provide any evidence to the contrary for the Panel’s consideration. Therefore, the Panel finds no basis in the record to find Respondent commonly known by the <travelrs.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in [the respondent’s] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is ‘commonly known by’ the <travelrs.com> domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the <travelrs.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent uses its <travelrs.com> domain name to display third party links to products and services that are in direct competition with Complainant’s business. The use by a respondent of a domain to host links to products and services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (holding that the respondent had not demonstrated a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use when “the website resolving from the <travelrs.com> domain name displays links to travel products and services, which directly compete with Complainant’s business”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the <travelrs.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent uses the resolving website to host competing third party links, thereby engaging in conduct proscribed by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The use by a respondent of a domain name’s resolving website to display competing hyperlinks is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (“The disputed domain names resolve to websites that list links to competitors of Complainant, evidence that Respondent intends to disrupt Complainant’s business, a further indication of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). For this reason, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent uses the domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. A respondent’s use of a domain to host competing hyperlinks violates Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has engaged in the tactic of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who inadvertently omit the second letter “e” in Complainant’s mark. Evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been found where a respondent’s domain is merely a misspelled version of a complainant’s mark. See Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp., FA 328127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2004) (“By engaging in typosquatting, [r]espondent has registered and used the <vangard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the domain with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark. In so arguing, Complainant relies on the fame of its mark and that its mark has been in use for more than 150 years. A respondent demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent was well-aware of the complainant’s mark at the time the domain was registered. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <travelrs.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds 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 <travelrs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: March 4, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page