Save the Children Federation, Inc. v.
Mike Flynn a/k/a mf
Claim
Number: FA0402000241938
Complainant is Save the Children Federation, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by William G. Pecau, of Steptoe & Johnson LLP,
1330 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036. Respondent is Mike Flynn a/k/a mf (“Respondent”), 425 W. 58th St., New York, NY 10019.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <savethechildern.org>, registered with Intercosmos
Media Group, Inc d/b/a directNIC.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.
Louis
E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on February 25, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 25, 2004.
On
February 27, 2004, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc d/b/a directNIC.com confirmed
by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <savethechildern.org>
is registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc d/b/a directNIC.com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc
d/b/a directNIC.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos
Media Group, Inc d/b/a directNIC.com 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
March 3, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
March 23, 2004 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@savethechildern.org 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
March 31, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <savethechildern.org>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s <SAVE THE CHILDREN>
mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <savethechildern.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <savethechildern.org>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Save the Children Federation, Inc., is a not-for-profit corporation that
provides fund-raising, education and other assistance to impoverished children
of all ages in the United States and throughout the world. Save the Children
has operated since 1939 and is one of the most famous charities in the United
States.
Complainant
holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office for the SAVE THE CHILDREN mark (Reg. No. 991,617, issued
August 20, 1974 and Reg. No. 2,582,204, issued June 18, 2002).
Complainant’s main
website is located at the <savethechildren.org> domain name where
Complainant furthers its charitable goals by explaining its mission and
programs to help children and reaching out to potential volunteers, sponsors
and donors. Complainant has maintained this website since 1995.
Respondent is
using the domain name to divert Internet traffic to a series of websites that
show graphic pictures of aborted fetuses at <abortiontruth.com> and
<abortionismurder.org>, and websites that promote social and political
agendas at <thetruthpage.com>. These websites are completely unrelated to
Complainant’s charitable services.
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.
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Moreover,
Respondent has offered no proof and there is no evidence in the record
suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the SAVE THE CHILDREN mark. Thus,
Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish
Country Store, FA 96209
(Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights
in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp.,
D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a
license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been
satisfied.
Sufficient
evidence exists in the record to suggest that Respondent registered and used
the disputed domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent used a confusingly
similar domain name to redirect Internet users who intended to search under
Complainant’s mark to a website that provided graphic images of aborted fetuses
and politically charged content, websites unrelated to Complainant’s charitable
services. Furthermore, the websites that Internet users were directed to when
searching under Complainant’s mark capitalize on the goodwill Complainant
established under its mark and likely tarnish Complainant’s mark. Intentionally
taking advantage of the goodwill of a Complainant’s mark to further a political
agenda and increase traffic to a website is evidence of bad faith registration
and use. See McClatchy Management Services, Inc. v. Please DON'T Kill Your
Baby 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 Journal Gazette Co. v. Domain For Sale Inc., FA 12202
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 9, 2002) (finding “Respondent chose the domain name to
increase the traffic flowing to the <abortionismurder.org> and
<thetruthpage.com> websites”); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Out
Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating that
“[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s
marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive
quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to
Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website” in holding
that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Respondent’s
registration of Complainant’s mark in its entirety except for the mere
transposition of two letters, suggests that Respondent had knowledge of
Complainant’s charitable services and associated reputation. Thus, Respondent
likely knew Complainant had rights in the SAVE THE CHILDREN mark and chose the <savethechildern.org>
domain name based on its distinctive qualities. Furthermore, Complainant’s
registration of its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
confers constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark on
Respondent. Constructive knowledge of rights in a mark at the time of
registration evidences bad faith registration. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr.
17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive
knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also
Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002)
(“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO,
a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use
the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”); see also Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that
Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark
given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the
domain name in bad faith); see also Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of
bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s
trademarks, actually or constructively.”).
The Panel finds
that ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant
having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the
Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <savethechildern.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated:
April 9, 2004