The Travelers Indemnity Company v. jack Halua / Google Inc
Claim Number: FA1707001739643
Complainant is The Travelers Indemnity Company (“Complainant”), represented by Caroline Ahn of One Tower Square, Connecticut, USA. Respondent is jack Halua / Google Inc (“Respondent”), Nevada, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <travelerschampionshipgolf.org>, 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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 12, 2017; the Forum received payment on July 12, 2017.
On July 14, 2017, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> 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 July 14, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 3, 2017 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@travelerschampionshipgolf.org. Also on July 14, 2017, 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 August 7, 2017, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is an international property and liability insurance corporation that provides insurance-related products and services. Complainant uses the TRAVELERS mark in conjunction with its business practices. Complainant uses the TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP mark for its annual charity golf tournament. Complainant registered the TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP mark with the United States Trademark and Patent Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,360,272; registered Dec. 25, 2007). Respondent’s <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding the descriptive term “golf” and the “.org” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in <travelerschampionshipgolf.org>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP mark in any regard, nor is Respondent affiliated with Complainant. Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> resolves to a webpage directing internet users to click on a link to watch Complainant’s golf tournament at a third party website, presumably for Respondent’s financial gain. The third party website, <gamezmelt.com>, phishes for users’ personal and credit card information for access to online streaming of video content.
Respondent registered, and is using <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> in bad faith. Respondent has registered multiple domain names infringing on third party marks, thereby showing a pattern of bad faith registrations. The disputed domain name diverts internet users to a third party website to obtain personal and credit card information. Respondent’s <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> creates confusion as to Respondent’s affiliation with Complainant. Respondent registered <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> with actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights to the TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is The Travelers Indemnity Company of Hartford, Connecticut, USA. Complainant is the owner of domestic and international registrations for the mark TRAVELERS and related marks constituting the Travelers family of marks, including the mark TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP. Complainant has continuously used the TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP mark since at least as early as 2006 in connection with its organizing, arranging, and conducting of annual golf tournaments.
Respondent is Jack Halua of Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Mumbai, India. The Panel notes that Respondent registered <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> on or about June 22, 2017.
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.”).
Complainant is an international property and liability insurance corporation that provides insurance-related products and services. Complainant uses the TRAVELERS mark in conjunction with its business practices. Complainant uses the TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP mark for its annual charity golf tournament. Complainant registered the TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,360,272; registered Dec. 25, 2007). Past panels have found that USPTO registrations are sufficient to show rights in a mark. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register at Exhibit 1, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel here finds that Complainant’s USPTO registration is sufficient to show rights in the TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP mark.
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding the descriptive term “golf” and the “.org” gTLD. Prior panels have found that confusing similarity exists where a disputed domain name contains a complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain. See e.g., Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016), see also Disney Enter. v. Kudrna, FA 686103 (Forum June 2, 2006).
The Panel here finds that the alterations to Complainant’s mark in Respondent’s domain name are insufficient to differentiate the domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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 (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). Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in <travelerschampionshipgolf.org>, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information associated with this case identifies Respondent as “jack Halua” of “Google Inc.”. A respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name where there is no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See e.g., Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006). Because Respondent has provided no evidence to contradict Complainant’s assertions, and nothing in the WHOIS information indicates Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the Panel here finds that Respondent is not commonly known by <travelerschampionshipgolf.org>.
Complainant asserts it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the TRAVELERS CHAMPIONSHIP mark in any regard, nor is Respondent affiliated with Complainant. Complainant contends that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Complainant provided evidence that Respondent’s <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> resolves to a webpage directing internet users to click on a link to watch Complainant’s golf tournament at a third party website, presumably for Respondent’s financial gain. The third party website, <gamezmelt.com>, phishes for users’ personal and credit card information for access to online streaming of video content. Previous panels have held that a “[r]espondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking [c]omplainant's website to a website of [r]espondent and for [r]espondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).” Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003). Moreover, using a domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive Internet users into providing their credit card and personal information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Forum Mar. 29, 2004), see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003).
“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As Respondent has not provided a response to this action, Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> in bad faith. Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered multiple domain names infringing on third party marks, thereby showing a pattern of bad faith registrations. Panels have found a bad faith pattern of conduct where the respondent registered many domain names unrelated to its business which infringe on famous marks and websites. See e.g., Am. Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Forum Mar. 16, 2000), see also, N.H. Sweepstakes Comm’n v. We Web Well, Inc., FA 197499 (Forum Nov. 3, 2003). The Panel here finds that Complainant’s submission of WHOIS evidence that lists Respondent as the registrant of other domain names incorporating third-party trademarks is sufficient to establish that Respondent has a pattern of registering and using domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
The Panel again notes Respondent’s <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> resolves to a website offering unauthorized online streaming of Complainant’s golf tournament, redirecting users to a phishing website. Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name diverts internet users to third party websites to obtain personal and credit card information. Past panels have found bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting. See e.g., Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006). Moreover, a respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme further establishes its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See e.g., Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015).
Additionally, Complainant claims that Respondent’s <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> creates confusion as to Respondent’s affiliation with Complainant. The Panel here finds that <travelerschampionshipgolf.org> was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through Respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using Complainant’s famous mark.
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proven this element.
DECISION
As 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 <travelerschampionshipgolf.org>domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: August 21, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page