DECISION

 

SiteComp, Inc. v. Modern Limited-Cayman Web Development

Claim Number:  FA0405000280552

 

PARTIES

Complainant is SiteComp, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mark Thieroff, of Siegel Brill Greupner Duffy & Foster, P.A., 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 1300, Minneapolis, MN 55401.  Respondent is Modern Limited-Cayman Web Development  (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 908, George Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <sitecomp.com>, registered with Address Creation.

 

PANEL

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.

 

James A. Carmody, Esq.,  as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on May 27, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 28, 2004.

 

On June 3, 2004, Address Creation confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <sitecomp.com> is registered with Address Creation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Address Creation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Address Creation 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 June 3, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 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@sitecomp.com 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 June 28, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <sitecomp.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s SITECOMP mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sitecomp.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <sitecomp.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, SiteComp, Inc., sells software for computation and drafting in the fields of civil engineering, land surveying, and planning and provides training and technical support for that software. Complainant registered the SITECOMP mark on July 2, 2002, (Reg. No. 2,587,382), originally filing on July 7, 2000, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). 

 

Respondent, Modern Limited—Cayman Web Development, registered <sitecomp.com> on March 20, 2002.  Respondent is using the disputed domain name to refer Internet users to a search engine.  The disputed domain name leads Internet users to a page displaying search results relating to “design firms.” 

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has rights in the SITECOMP mark as established by its registration with the USPTO.  See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.  Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption).

 

In addition, while Complainant’s trademark registration does not pre-date Respondent’s domain name registration, the Panel construes Complainant’s filing date to establish that Complainant’s rights in the SITECOMP mark predate Respondent’s registration of the <sitecomp.com> domain name.  See FDNY Fire Safety Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Miller, FA 145235 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2003) (finding that Complainant’s rights in the FDNY mark relate back to the date that its successful trademark registration was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office); see also J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960, 144 U.S.P.Q. 435 (C.C.P.A. 1965) (registration on the Principal Register is prima facie proof of continual use of the mark, dating back to the filing date of the application for registration).

 

Respondent’s <sitecomp.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s SITECOMP mark.  The only difference is the omission of the “.com” generic top-level domain, which does not distinguish the domain name from the mark.  See Interstellar Starship Services Ltd. v. EPIX, Inc., 983 F.Supp. 1331, 1335 (D.Or. 1997) (<epix.com> "is the same mark" as EPIX); see also Snow Fun, Inc. v. O'Connor, FA 96578 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2001) (finding that the domain name <termquote.com> is identical to Complainant’s TERMQUOTE mark).

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Respondent has not responded to this Complaint.  Therefore, the Panel may accept all reasonable assertions in the Complaint as true.  See 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”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint).

 

Respondent is using the disputed domain name to provide links to websites that offer similar services.  Wholly incorporating another’s mark in a domain name to offer competing services is not 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 Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc., v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services); see also Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).

 

There is nothing in the record, including Respondent’s WHOIS domain name registration information, which indicates that Respondent is commonly known by <sitecomp.com>, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also 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).

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark in a domain name to offer links to competing services.  Appropriating another’s mark to offer competing services constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where Respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites); see also Hewlett Packard Co. v. Full Sys., FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant by offering personal e-mail accounts under the domain name <openmail.com> which is identical to Complainant’s services under the OPENMAIL mark).

 

Respondent is also wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark in the <sitecomp.com> domain name and directs Internet users to a search engine that links to commercial websites.  Creating a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain is bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See 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)); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sitecomp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist

Dated:  July 12, 2004

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page