national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.; New Line Productions, Inc. and DC Comics v. Procount Business Services

Claim Number:  FA0411000360942

 

PARTIES

Complainants are Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.; New Line Productions, Inc. and DC Comics (“Complainant”), represented by J. Andrew Coombs, of J. Andrew Coombs, A Professional Corporation, 450 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 600, Glendale, CA 91203-2349.  Respondent is Procount Business Services, P.O. Box 1035, Alief, TX 77411-1035 (“Respondent”).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <austinpowersstore.com>, <batmanstore.com>, <tweetybirdstore.com>, <tweetystore.com> and <wonderwomanstore.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 4, 2004; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 4, 2004.

 

On November 4, 2004, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain names <austinpowersstore.com>, <batmanstore.com>, <tweetybirdstore.com>, <tweetystore.com> and <wonderwomanstore.com> are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, Inc. 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 November 5, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 29, 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@austinpowersstore.com, postmaster@batmanstore.com, postmaster@tweetybirdstore.com, postmaster@tweetystore.com and postmaster@wonderwomanstore.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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On December 9, 2004, pursuant to Complainants’ request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <austinpowersstore.com>, <batmanstore.com>, <tweetybirdstore.com>, < tweetystore.com> and <wonderwomanstore.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AUSTIN POWERS, BATMAN, TWEETY and WONDER WOMAN marks.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <austinpowersstore.com>, <batmanstore.com>, <tweetybirdstore.com>, <tweetystore.com> and <wonderwomanstore.com> domain names.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <austinpowersstore.com>, <batmanstore.com>, <tweetybirdstore.com>, <tweetystore.com> and <wonderwomanstore.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainants are wholly owned subsidiaries of Time Warner, Inc. and each is an affiliate of the other.  Complainants are active in the entertainment industry, producing, distributing and marketing popular films, television series and comic books worldwide.  Collectively, Complainants have registered numerous trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) covering famous characters.  These include, but are not limited to the following marks, AUSTIN POWERS (Reg. No. 2,418,333, issued January 2, 2001), BATMAN (Reg. No. 0,804,709, issued March 1, 1966), TWEETY (Reg. No. 1,306,114, issued November 20, 1984) and WONDER WOMAN (Reg. No. 1,221,717, issued December 28, 1982).

 

Respondent registered the <austinpowersstore.com> and <batmanstore.com> on April 24, 2003, and <tweetybirdstore.com>, <tweetystore.com> and <wonderwomanstore.com> on April 28, 2003.  Each domain name resolves to a website selling products featuring its respective mark.

 

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 established that it has rights in the AUSTIN POWERS, BATMAN, TWEETY and WONDER WOMAN marks through registration with the USPTO and through the continuous use of the marks in commerce.  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).

 

Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. The domain names entirely incorporate Complainant’s marks with the addition of the generic term “store.”  Additionally, Respondent’s <tweetybirdstore.com> domain name also adds the term “bird.”  Such additions do not disguise the fact that the dominant features of the domain names are Complainant’s marks, and each domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied).

 

Respondent’s <austinpowersstore.com> and <wonderwomanstore.com> domain names additionally omit the space between words that exist in Complainant’s AUSTIN POWERS and WONDER WOMAN marks.  Such omission is not sufficient to overcome a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Wembley Nat’l Stadium Ltd. v. Thomson, D2000-1233 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding that the domain name <wembleystadium.net> is identical to the WEMBLEY STADIUM mark).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint.  Therefore, the Panel accepts all reasonable allegations set forth in the Complaint as true.  See Am. Online, Inc. v. Clowers, FA 199821 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 14, 2003) (finding that the failure to challenge a complainant’s allegations allows a panel to accept all of the complainant’s reasonable allegations and inferences as true); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that the failure to respond to a complaint allows a panel to make reasonable inferences in favor of a complainant and accept the complainant’s allegations as true).

 

In addition, the Panel construes Respondent’s failure to respond as an admission that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Domain Deluxe, FA 269166 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2004) (“The failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint functions both as an implicit admission that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the domain names, as well as a presumption that Complainant’s reasonable allegations are true.”).

 

Furthermore, nothing in the record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names.  Moreover, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to register or use domain names that incorporate Complainant’s marks.  Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names 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 Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

 

Respondent’s domain names resolve to websites featuring online stores operated by Respondent selling various products featuring Complainant’s marks.  Respondent’s websites additionally link to Complainant’s competitor websites.  Such use of the disputed domain names by Respondent is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enter., Inc. D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests based on the fact that the domain names bear no relationship to the business of Respondent and that Respondent would only legitimately choose to use Complainant’s mark in a domain name if Respondent was seeking to create an impression that the two businesses were affiliated); see also Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Ostanik, D2000-1611 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the <pitneybowe.com> domain name where Respondent purports to resell original Pitney Bowes’ equipment on its website, as well as goods of other competitors of Complainant).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain names and incorporated Complainant’s marks with the intent to commercially benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s marks.  Respondent offers various products based on Complainant’s famous marks.  Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another’s mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Gen. Media Communications, Inc. v. Vine Ent., FA 96554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2001) (finding bad faith where a competitor of Complainant registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark to host a pornographic web site); see also H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to UDRP ¶ 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 marks and likeness); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website).

 

Additionally, Complainant’s marks have not only obtained great fame in the marketplace, but Complainant has also registered them with the USPTO.   The Panel thus infers that Respondent had either actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s marks.  Therefore, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names, despite knowledge of Complainant’s interest in the marks, constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse"); see also 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 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 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”).

 

Furthermore, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by registering domain names confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks and using them to sell competing licensed products.  See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000)  (finding that the minor degree of variation from Complainant's marks suggests that Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

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 <austinpowersstore.com>, <batmanstore.com>, <tweetybirdstore.com>, <tweetystore.com> and <wonderwomanstore.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  December 22, 2004

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum