America Online, Inc. v. David Karandish
Claim Number: FA0509000563833
Complainant is America Online, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis, of Arent Fox PLLC, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Respondent is David Karandish (“Respondent”), 761 Heman Ave., 1N, University City, MO 63130.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <aimtalk.com> and <aimtalk.info>, registered with Enom, Inc. and Sipence, Inc., respectively.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 19, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 23, 2005.
On September 20, 2005, Enom, Inc., confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <aimtalk.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc., and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 September 22, 2005, Sipence, Inc., confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <aimtalk.info> domain name is registered with Sipence, Inc., and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sipence, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sipence, 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 September 26, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 17, 2005 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@aimtalk.com and postmaster@aimtalk.info by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 21, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <aimtalk.com> and <aimtalk.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <aimtalk.com> and <aimtalk.info> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aimtalk.com> and <aimtalk.info> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, America Online, Inc., uses its AIM mark in connection with online communications services and general interest information on the Internet. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the AIM mark (Reg. No. 2,423,367 issued January 23, 2001).
Respondent registered the <aimtalk.com> domain name on January 3, 2003 and the <aimtalk.info> domain name on September 28, 2004. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial websites featuring links to online communications services that compete with Complainant’s business.
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. 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
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.
Complainant has established rights in the AIM mark through
registration of the mark with the USPTO.
See Am. Online, Inc. v. Thomas P.
Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful
trademark registration with the USPTO creates a presumption of rights in a
mark); see also Innomed Tech., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004)
(“Registration
of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the
mark.”).
Respondent’s <aimtalk.com> and <aimtalk.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIM mark because Respondent’s domain names incorporate Complainant’s mark in its entirety and add the term “talk” and the generic top-level domains “.com” and “.info.” The Panel finds that such minor alterations to Complainant’s registered mark do not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain names 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 the 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); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <aimtalk.com> and <aimtalk.info> domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent is using the <aimtalk.com> and <aimtalk.info>
domain names to provide links to online communications services that
compete with Complainant’s business.
Respondent’s use of domain names that are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s AIM mark to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s
products and services to websites that offer similar goods and services in
competition with Complainant’s business is not a use in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it
a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys.,
Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s
appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete
with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and
services.”); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v.
BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent
is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where
services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”); see also Or. State
Bar v. A Special Day, Inc., FA 99657 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2001)
(“Respondent's advertising of legal services and sale of law-related books
under Complainant's name is not a bona fide offering of goods and services
because Respondent is using a mark confusingly similar to the Complainant's to
sell competing goods.”).
Moreover, Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <aimtalk.com> or <aimtalk.info> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <aimtalk.com> and <aimtalk.info> domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor was the respondent using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the <aimtalk.com> and <aimtalk.info> domain names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIM mark, to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial websites that feature links to goods and services that compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that such use constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see also Puckett v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to competing websites. Because Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIM mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s domain names may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting websites. Thus, Respondent’s use of the <aimtalk.com> and <aimtalk.info> domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant’s mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <aimtalk.com> and <aimtalk.info> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: November 2, 2005
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum