Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Bhagwandat, Richard / The Collection Shop
Claim Number: FA1611001704342
Complainant is Disney Enterprises, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by J. Andrew Coombs of J. ANDREW COOMBS, A Professional Corporation, California, USA. Respondent is Bhagwandat, Richard / The Collection Shop ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <disneyanimation.net>, <disneyartists.com>, <disneyexchange.net>, <disneyfineart.net>, and <disneyfinearts.com>, registered with Network Solutions, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 22, 2016; the Forum received payment on November 22, 2016.
On November 23, 2016, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <disneyanimation.net>, <disneyartists.com>, <disneyexchange.net>, <disneyfineart.net>, and <disneyfinearts.com> domain names are registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 November 23, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 13, 2016 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@disneyanimation.net, postmaster@disneyartists.com, postmaster@disneyexchange.net, postmaster@disneyfineart.net, postmaster@disneyfinearts.com. Also on November 23, 2016, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 16, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a worldwide leading producer of children's entertainment goods and services. Complainant owns hundreds of trademark registrations for DISNEY and related marks in the United States and other countries. Complainant claims that the DISNEY mark is famous around the world.
Respondent is the registrant of the five disputed domain names, <disneyanimation.net>, <disneyartists.com>, <disneyexchange.net>, <disneyfineart.net>, and <disneyfinearts.com>, all of which incorporate the DISNEY mark. Complainant states that Respondent is using the domain names without Complainant's authorization, and that the domain names are being used to infringe Complainant's trademark rights and trade off Complainant's goodwill.
The domain name <disneyanimation.net> does not resolve. The domain names <disneyexchange.net>, and <disneyfineart.net>, and <disneyfinearts.com> redirect users to landing pages containing links to sites related to products and services of Complainant and its competitors. The domain name <disneyartists.com> resolves to a website displaying Complainant's DISNEY mark and offering "Disney Fine Art" for sale.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <disneyanimation.net>, <disneyartists.com>, <disneyexchange.net>, <disneyfineart.net>, and <disneyfinearts.com> are confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names; and that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of each of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used 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 undisputed 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 (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.").
Each of the disputed domain names combines Complainant's registered DISNEY mark with a generic term related to Complainant's business and a top-level domain. These additions do not diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Mark Trepanier & DisneyThemes.com, FA 1030838 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (finding <disneyartposters.com>, <disneythemes.com>, <disney-watches.com> and <disneythemes.net> confusingly similar to DISNEY). The Panel considers the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Such rights or interests may arise from the use of or preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Policy paragraph 4(c)(i).
All of the disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's mark without authorization. The only apparent uses of the domain names have been for pay-per-click link pages and a commercial website that uses Complainant's mark to promote the sale of merchandise. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of each of the disputed domain names.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent's registration of five domain names that combine Complainant's famous mark with generic terms relating to Complainant's business, together with the use of these domain names to promote the sale of merchandise and to link to other commercial websites, presumably for commercial gain, is indicative of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <disneyanimation.net>, <disneyartists.com>, <disneyexchange.net>, <disneyfineart.net>, and <disneyfinearts.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 16, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page