American International Group, Inc. v. domains Ventures
Claim Number: FA0603000657202
Complainant is American International Group, Inc. (“Complainant”) 70 Pine Street, New York, NY 10270. Respondent is domains Ventures (“Respondent”), 136 Xiaoxue Road, Xiamen, Fujian 361001, CN.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <aigautoservices.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 10, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 13, 2006.
On March 17, 2006, Moniker Online Services, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <aigautoservices.com> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, 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 March 21, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 10, 2006 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@aigautoservices.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 14, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <aigautoservices.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIG mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <aigautoservices.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aigautoservices.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, American International Group, Inc., uses the AIG mark in relation to its wide variety of insurance and financial services. In 2004, Complainant’s revenues were over $97 billion. Complainant holds numerous registrations of the AIG mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,273,845 issued April 10, 1984; Reg. No. 1,851,675 issued August 30, 1994; Reg. No. 2,320,184 issued February 22, 2000; Reg. No. 2,840,232 issued May 11, 2004;). In addition, Complainant holds more than 380 registrations for its mark in 103 countries around the world. Complainant also maintains an Internet presence in connection with its business at the <aigfinancial.com> and <aig.com> domain names. Complainant spends millions of dollars annually in promoting its services under the AIG mark, including advertising in widely-circulating magazines, major sporting events and prime-time television shows. As a result, the AIG mark is well-known worldwide.
Respondent registered the <aigautoservices.com> domain name on May 1, 2002. Internet users who access this domain name are directed to a generic search-engine website featuring Complainant’s mark, links to Complainant’s website, links to Complainant’s competitors’ websites and other links to a variety of goods and services such as “travel,” “finance,” “home,” “entertainment,” and “lifestyle.”
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. 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 AIG mark through
its registration with the USPTO. Vivendi
Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11,
2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's
rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Innomed
Techs., 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 <aigautoservices.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates Complainant’s entire AIG mark and merely adds the descriptive terms “auto” and “services” without spaces, along with the top-level domain “.com”. The terms “auto” and “services” are descriptive terms, and therefore add no distinctive qualities to the disputed domain name. See America Online, Inc. v. Anytime Online Traffic Sch., FA 146930 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 11, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s domain names, which incorporated the complainant’s entire mark and merely added the descriptive terms “traffic school,” “defensive driving,” and “driver improvement” did not add any distinctive features capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity). The addition of a top-level domain also fails to distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark, because all domain names require top-level domains. Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra, Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name <robohelp.com> is identical to the complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference").
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
When Complainant presents a prima facie case as to its allegations against Respondent, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant has presented a prima facie case, and Respondent did not respond. The Panel will therefore examine the evidence to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once complainant asserts that respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain, the burden shifts to respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
The Panel finds that Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIG mark in order to divert users who are interested in Complainant’s goods and services to Respondent’s website. The fact that Respondent’s website features Complainant’s marks and links to Complainant’s website serves to further this confusion. The Panel infers that Respondent receives payment in the form of click-through fees for diverting Internet users to the other websites linked to Respondent’s website. Therefore, Respondent’s use of the domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name); see also Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate use when respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by using complainant’s trademarks).
Furthermore, based on the well-known
status of Complainant’s mark throughout the world Respondent can be commonly
known by a similar mark. Respondent has
not provided any proof establishing that it is commonly known by the <aigautoservices.com>
domain name, and nothing in the WHOIS database entry for this domain name
indicates that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). Victoria’s Secret v. Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28,
2001) (finding sufficient proof that Respondent was not commonly known by a
domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because
of Complainant’s well-established use of the mark); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc.,
FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by
complainant’s marks and respondent has not used the domain names in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent uses the <aigautoservices.com>
domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AIG mark, to present
Internet users with links to products offered by Complainant and Complainant’s
competitors. Respondent most likely
receives click-through fees in return for directing Internet users to other
websites. Such use of the disputed
domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). Gardens
Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) (“Respondent registered and used the
<my-seasons.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii)
and (iv) because Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar
to the MYSEASONS mark for commercial benefit by diverting Internet users to the
<thumbgreen.com> website, which sells competing goods and services.”);
see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v.
Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain
name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain
name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably
commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving
‘click-through-fees.’”).
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 <aigautoservices.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: April 25, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum