national arbitration forum

DECISION

Intel Corporation v. M. Macare a/k/a M. Macar

Claim Number: FA0603000660685

PARTIES

Complainant is Intel Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Joel D. Leviton, of Fish & Richardson P.C., P.A., 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3300, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Respondent is M. Macare a/k/a M. Macar (“Respondent”), Buitenweg 75, Maurik 4021 BC.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain name at issue is <pentium-extreme.com>, <pentium-extreme.info>, <pentium-extreme.net>, <pentium-extreme.org>, <pentium4extreme.biz>, <pentium4extreme.com>, <pentium4extreme.info>, <pentium4extreme.net>, <centrino-duo.biz>, <centrino-duo.com>, <centrino-duo.info>, <centrino-duo.net>, <centrino-duo.org>, <centrinoduo.biz>, <centrinoduo.com>, <centrinoduo.info>, <centrinoduo.net>, <centrinoduo.org>, <centrino-solo.biz>, <centrino-solo.com>,

<centrino-solo.info>, <centrino-solo.net>, <centrino-solo.org>, <centrinosolo.biz>, <centrinosolo.com>, <centrinosolo.info>, <centrinosolo.net>, <centrinosolo.org>, <core-inside.biz>, <core-inside.com>, <core-inside.info>, <core-inside.net>, <core-inside.org>, <coreinside.biz>, <coreinside.com>, <coreinside.info>, <coreinside.net>, <coreinside.org>, <core-duo.biz>, <core-duo.info>, <core-duo.net>, <core-duo.org>, <coreduo.biz>, <coreduo.info>, <coreduo.net>, <coreduo.org>, <core-solo.biz>, <core-solo.info>, <core-solo.net>, <core-solo.org>, <coresolo.biz>, <coresolo.info>, <coresolo.net> and <coresolo.org>, registered with Enom, Inc.

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.

Louis E. Condon as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 15, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 16, 2006.

On March 15, 2006, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <pentium-extreme.com>, <pentium-extreme.info>, <pentium-extreme.net>, <pentium-extreme.org>, <pentium4extreme.biz>, <pentium4extreme.com>, <pentium4extreme.info>, <pentium4extreme.net>, <centrino-duo.biz>, <centrino-duo.com>, <centrino-duo.info>, <centrino-duo.net>, <centrino-duo.org>, <centrinoduo.biz>, <centrinoduo.com>, <centrinoduo.info>, <centrinoduo.net>, <centrinoduo.org>, <centrino-solo.biz>, <centrino-solo.com>,

On March 16, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 5, 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@pentium-extreme.com, postmaster@pentium-extreme.info, postmaster@pentium-extreme.net, postmaster@pentium-extreme.org, postmaster@pentium4extreme.biz, postmaster@pentium4extreme.com, postmaster@pentium4extreme.info, postmaster@pentium4extreme.net, postmaster@centrino-duo.biz, postmaster@centrino-duo.com, postmaster@centrino-duo.info, postmaster@centrino-duo.net, postmaster@centrino-duo.org, postmaster@centrinoduo.biz, postmaster@centrinoduo.com, postmaster@centrinoduo.info, postmaster@centrinoduo.net, postmaster@centrinoduo.org, postmaster@centrino-solo.biz, postmaster@centrino-solo.com, postmaster@centrino-solo.info, postmaster@centrino-solo.net, postmaster@centrino-solo.org, postmaster@centrinosolo.biz, postmaster@centrinosolo.com, postmaster@centrinosolo.info, postmaster@centrinosolo.net, postmaster@centrinosolo.org, postmaster@core-inside.biz, postmaster@core-inside.com, postmaster@core-inside.info, postmaster@core-inside.net, postmaster@core-inside.org, postmaster@coreinside.biz, postmaster@coreinside.com, postmaster@coreinside.info, postmaster@coreinside.net, postmaster@coreinside.org, postmaster@core-duo.biz, postmaster@core-duo.info, postmaster@core-duo.net, postmaster@core-duo.org, postmaster@coreduo.biz, postmaster@coreduo.info, postmaster@coreduo.net, postmaster@coreduo.org, postmaster@core-solo.biz, postmaster@core-solo.info, postmaster@core-solo.net, postmaster@core-solo.org, postmaster@coresolo.biz, postmaster@coresolo.info, postmaster@coresolo.net and postmaster@coresolo.org

by e-mail.

A response was received on April 5, 2006 and was determined to be deficient because it was received after the deadline and was not in hard copy.

An Additional Submission from Complainant was received on April 11, 2006 and determined not to be in compliance with Supplemental Rule #7 because it was received after the deadline for submissions.

On April 13, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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.

The National Arbitration Forum has determined that Respondent has submitted a deficient Response in accordance with ICANN Rule #5(b), because the National Arbitration Forum did not receive the Response in hard copy form. The Panel may still consider the late Response in addition to materials timely received but has no obligation to consider it in light of its deficient nature. See Bd. of Governors of the Univ. of Alberta v. Katz, D2000-0378 (WIPO June 22, 2000) (finding that a panel may consider a response which was one day late, and received before a panelist was appointed and any consideration made); see also Telstra Corp. v. Chu, D2000-0423 (WIPO June 21, 2000) (finding that any weight to be given to the lateness of the response is solely in the discretion of the panelist). But see S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (without an adequate timely filed response, all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint will be taken as true); see also SuNyx Surface Nanotechnologies GmbH v. Primmer, D2002-0968 (WIPO Jan. 20, 2003) (choosing not to consider either Complainant’s or Respondent’s additional submissions that were received after the stated deadline where neither set out any new facts or other circumstances that would justify the late submission).

As noted above, the National Arbitration Forum also determined that the Complainant’s Additional Submission was not in compliance with Supplemental Rule #7 because it was received after the deadline for submissions. After due consideration, and in a sense of equity and fair play, in order to afford justice to both parties the Panel decided that in arriving at his decision he would fully consider both documents as though there were no technical defects.

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 domain names are identical or confusingly similar to

Complainant’s marks.

(2) Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.

(3) Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith.

B. Respondent makes the following assertions:

(1) All of the domain names were available at the time of registration. While the Complainant’s trademarks may include some of the words used in the Respondent’s domain names, they are commonly used words.

(2) Respondent has other Intel-related domain names that Complainant has

not complained about, demonstrating that Complainant has never seen the

value of these domain names.

(3) Respondent’s domain names are a benefit to Complainant because they

are advertising Intel products without charge.

(4) Although the names are for sale, Respondent has not set a price. Anyone

can bid on them and may even make a “package deal” for a better price.

(5) There are other domain names using Complainant’s names registered by

persons other than the Respondent. Further, there are other possible variations of Complainant’s names that have not been registered by anyone.

FINDINGS:

(A) AS TO THE COMPLAINANT

For nearly four decades, Complainant Intel Corporation (“Intel”) has been developing products that have enabled and advanced the computer and Internet revolution. Founded in 1968 to build semiconductor memory products, Complainant has grown to become the world’s leading manufacturer of computer chips. Intel is also a leading manufacturer of networking and communications products. In 2005, Complainant’s sales topped $38 billion.

In 1993, Complainant adopted the now-famous PENTIUM trademark in connection with microprocessors. To differentiate various PENTIUM brand microprocessors, Intel uses, among other designations, the numbers “II,” “III,” and “4.” Complainant owns over 500 trademark registrations worldwide for marks comprising or containing PENTIUM, including over a dozen U.S. registrations and registrations in the Benelux region (Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg) and Netherlands Antilles. Complainant also offers, among other types of PENTIUM processors, an Extreme Edition Pentium® processor. Complainant owns registrations for the INTEL INSIDE PENTIUM 4 HT EXTREME EDITION design mark in the European Community, Japan, Taiwan, and the United States.

In 2003, Complainant adopted the well-known and distinctive CENTRINO trademark in connection with various computer hardware primarily designed for mobile technology. Complainant owns over 200 registrations for marks comprising or containing CENTRINO worldwide.

Nearly fifteen years ago, Complainant adopted the famous INTEL INSIDE mark and launched its INTEL INSIDE ingredient brand marketing program. Complainant owns over 200 registrations for the INTEL INSIDE trademark worldwide and hundreds of additional registrations for marks containing INTEL INSIDE, including the famous INTEL INSIDE and Design mark.

In 2005, Complainant introduced the Intel® Core^TMbrand family to its customers, such as original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Complainant’s INTEL® CORE™ processors are the next generation of processors for mobile platforms. Complainant owns over 150 pending applications throughout the world for the INTEL CORE trademark, most of which were filed in September of 2005, two months before Respondent registered the domain names. Complainant owns a registration for the INTEL CORE mark in the country of Andorra.

On November 11, 2005, Complainant began sending its OEMs, including those located in Europe (including the Netherlands), a confidential Branding and Campaign Communication Package for the Intel® Centrino® Duo Mobile Technology and the Intel® Core^TM Brand Family. The communication package advised Complainant’s OEMs of various branding initiatives and included multiple references to certain newly adopted designations including CENTRINO® DUO, INTEL® CORE^TM SOLO, and INTEL® CORE^TM DUO. On November 14, 2005, three days after Complainant sent the confidential communication package, Respondent registered fifty-four domain names containing Complainant’s valuable trademarks. The domain names contain designations that had not been publicly revealed when they were registered, including the aforementioned CENTRINO® DUO, CORE^TM SOLO, and CORE^TM DUO designations. The remainder of the domain names contain, or are confusingly similar to, other trademarks owned by Complainant, such as the famous PENTIUM and INTEL INSIDE marks. Respondent has sought compensation for the domain names, and in doing so, has admitted that all the domain names are “Intel-related.” Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of domain names in which he has no rights.

Respondent uses the domain names in connection with portal websites that feature links to various third party websites. These websites also feature links to more general terms such as “Hardware,” “Computer,” “Software,” and “Technology” which, when clicked, take the Internet user to a page with additional links to third party websites.

Moreover, the website associated with each domain name indicates that Respondent is offering to sell the domain names for $2,000 each. What’s more, when one clicks on the link to obtain more information about purchasing any of the domain names, a list of all fifty-four domain names Respondent registered appears showing that they all are for sale. The following text also appears:

“INTEL RECENTLY RELEASED THE NAMES OF THEIR NEW PROCESSOR LINES: COREDUO / CORESOLO / CENTRINODUO / CENTRINOSOLO….

TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THESE DOMAINNAMES [sic] WITH AN [sic] HARDWARE BASED INTERNET COMPANY OR ANYTHING SIMILAR!

GUARANTEED TO GENERATE LOTS OF HITS, VISITORS, AND TRAFFIC TO ANY WEBSITE”

(B) AS TO THE RESPONDENT

Respondent alleges that all the domain names he registered were free at the moment of registration on November 14, 2005. He further notes that Complainant has never registered these domain names before. The domain names including the terms “Core-Solo,” “CoreSolo,” “Core-Duo” and “CoreDuo” are not directly registered by Complainant as trademarks. The precise marks of the Complainant include these words, but in Respondent’s view the terms “Core”, “Solo” and “Duo” are very commonly used words that can be used for almost everything because of that fact.

Respondent states that the domain names featuring the terms “Core-Solo” and “Core-Duo” were registered before Complainant registered the INTEL CORE SOLO INSIDE and INTEL CORE DUO INSIDE marks. All “Core-Solo,” “CoreSolo,” “Core-Duo” and “CoreDuo” domain names were registered on November 14, 2005, while the domain names featuring the terms “Intel Core Solo Inside” and “Intel Core Duo Inside” were registered on December 14, 2005 and December 16, 2005.

Respondent further states, “The Complainant is also complaining about domain names with the names “Centrino”, “Pentium” and “Intel Inside” in the domain name. The strange thing here is that Intel registered their trademarks much earlier and never registered these domain names, but complains when it receives a list where registered domain names are listed in which Intel thinks that they are their names. This can be determined because the Respondent owns some more Intel related domain names that are not listed in the domain names complained about. That Complainant is not complaining about these “unknown” domain names is very strange. From this it can be determined that the complaint does not take any action to register their value-worthy domain names. Considering the time between the “first use dates” and the registration of the domain names, it can be determined that Intel never has seen the value of these domain names until they received the “domainnames.txt”.

“The domain names are at this moment advertising Intel-related products without charging Intel for the advertisement. This will be always an advantage for Intel because a consumer has no possibility to buy the Intel products directly from Intel. The pages behind the domain names complained of are showing the visitor where he can buy Intel-related products. This is an advantage for Intel because the visitor, when interested in Intel-products, is redirected to a supplier that can deliver Intel products directly to consumers.”

“Every person interested in one of the domain names can make a bid on the website of Sedo.com that can be lower than the shown price. The Response shows on the information-webpage of the domain names that a “package deal” is possible. In the world of business it is known that “packages deals” are always much lower than the sum of all separate parts together.”

“The Respondent wants to notice the NAF that at the moment of writing this “Response” there are other domain names using the Complainant’s marks free for registering. These domain names are in other “extensions” like .com, .net, .org. The Complainant has still not registered these domain names while complaining about the ones that are registered by the Respondent There are also domain names using the Complainant’s names registered by persons other than the Respondent.”

C. Additional Submission by the Complainant

A review of Respondent’s response confirms facts demonstrating that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain names and, that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. First, Respondent admits that he was trying to take advantage of the domain names. Second, Respondent admits that he has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain names. Third, Respondent does not deny the domain names are Intel-related. Indeed, Respondent now advises Intel and the Panel that he “owns some more Intel related domain names” that are not the subject of this proceeding.

The evidence demonstrates that on November 11, 2005, Complainant sent out a confidential communication package announcing Complainant’s new brands, and that on November 14, 2005, Respondent began registering domain names it acknowledges are “Intel-related.” Respondent connected each of the domain names to web pages on which Respondent states his awareness of Complainant’s new line of products and touts the value of the domain names. The Response does not contradict any of these facts. In fact, the Response further demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain names.

Respondent claims that it is “strange” that Complainant has not registered various domain names containing Complainant’s CENTRINO, PENTIUM, and INTEL INSIDE marks, yet Complainant complains when another party does. Plainly, a trademark owner is not required to register each and every possible domain name containing a variation of its marks

Respondent does not deny that he registered fifty-four domain names (and apparently more) containing both Complainant’s newly announced and well-established brands. Without question, Respondent registered the offending domain names in an attempt to profit.

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."

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 rights in the following marks by registering them with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”): PENTIUM (Reg. No. 1,834,434 issued May 3, 1994; Reg. No. 1,941,172 issued December 12, 1995; Reg. No. 2,173,650 issued July 14, 1998; Reg. No. 2,201,867 issued November 3, 1998); CENTRINO (Reg. No. 2,981,698 issued August 2, 2005) and INTEL INSIDE (Reg. No. 1,705,796 issued August 4, 1992; Reg. No. 1,702,463 issued July 21, 1992; Reg. No. 2,179,209 issued August 4, 1998). Complainant also asserts that it has established rights to the CORE INSIDE mark by registering the mark in Andorra with the Oficina De Marques Del Pricipat D'Andorra (OMPA) (Reg. No. 22,119 issued September 14, 2005) and filing for a trademark registration with the USPTO (Serial No. 78/714,166 filed September 15, 2005). See 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 Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction); see also U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. MS Tech. Inc., FA 198898 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2003) (“[O]nce the USPTO has made a determination that a mark is registrable, by so issuing a registration, as indeed was the case here, an ICANN panel is not empowered to nor should it disturb that determination.”).

Complainant further argues that the Pentium Domain Names are confusingly similar to its PENTIUM mark, because each domain name contains the entire mark and merely adds the generic term “extreme” and a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), with some domain names also adding the number “4” or a hyphen. In addition, Complainant asserts that the Centrino Domain Names are confusingly similar to its CENTRINO mark, because each incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the generic term “duo” or “solo” and a gTLD, with some also adding a hyphen. Complainant also alleges that the Core Domain Names are confusingly similar to its CORE INSIDE mark, because each domain name contains one or both terms of the mark and merely adds a gTLD, with some of the

domain names also including the generic terms “duo” or “solo.” Complainant asserts that all of these generic terms and numerals describe its computer processors and thus have an obvious relationship to its business. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s mere additions of generic terms, numerals, and hyphens to Complainant’s marks in the disputed domain names render the domain names confusingly similar to Complainant’s PENTIUM, CENTRINO and CORE INSIDE marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy); see also Am. Online Inc. v. Chinese ICQ Network, D2000-0808 (WIPO Aug. 31, 2000) (finding that the addition of the numeral 4 in the domain name <4icq.com> does nothing to deflect the impact on the viewer of the mark ICQ and is therefore confusingly similar); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which the complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity).

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

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the 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 has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).

Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, because the WHOIS information lists the registrant of the domain names as “M. Macare,” and there is no other evidence in the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant also asserts that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to register or use a domain name incorporating Complainant’s PENTIUM, CENTRINO or CORE INSIDE marks. The Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and, therefore, finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).

Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with 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), because the disputed domain names all resolve to the same web directory displaying links to various third-party websites. The Panel finds that Respondent is misdirecting Internet users seeking Complainant’s computer processing products to its own website for commercial gain in the form of click-through fees, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Diverting customers, who are looking for products relating to the famous SEIKO mark, to a website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names).

Complainant also asserts that Respondent’s web directory contains a link indicating that the domain name is for sale. Upon clicking on this link, Internet users reach a webpage purporting to offer all fifty-four of the disputed domain name registrations for sale at $2,000 each, or at a lesser price as part of a package deal. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the disputed domain name registrations provides further evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling its rights).

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

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant claims that Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in order to offer them for sale in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs. Complainant provides evidence that Respondent’s web directory at the disputed domain name registrations contains a link that resolves to a web page offering all fifty-four disputed domain names for sale at $2,000 each, or at a lesser price if bought as part of a package deal. The Panel finds that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name registrations is indicative of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. AchievementTec, Inc., FA 192316 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name registration for $2,000 sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”)

In addition, Complainant alleges that Respondent engaged in opportunistic bad faith by registering all fifty-four disputed domain name registrations on November 14, 2005, three days after Complainant’s announcement that it would be using the generic terms “solo,” “duo” and “extreme” in connection with its PENTIUM, CENTRINO and CORE INSIDE marks. Complainant claims that the text on Respondent’s web page purporting to sell the disputed domain names states that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s intent to use these terms with its marks and that consumers are guaranteed to generate profits by buying the domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s conduct constitutes opportunistic bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Cf. Tech. Props., Inc. v. Hussain, FA 95411 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (“The Respondent took advantage of the public announcement that Tandy Corporation was changing its name to RadioShack by registering the domain names on the same day as a public announcement of a company’s name change. This is also evidence of bad faith.”); 3M Co. v. Jeong, FA 505494 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2005) (“Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name the same day that Complainant issued a press release regarding the acquisition constitutes opportunistic bad faith.”).

Complainant also alleges that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because Respondent’s domain names resolve to a web directory featuring links to various third-party websites unrelated to Complainant. From this the Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for each consumer it diverts to these other websites. The Panel finds that Respondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the domain names and Complainant’s marks in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the marks, and holds that Respondent’s registration and diversionary use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to attract users to a website sponsored by the respondent); see also Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“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 is evidence of bad faith.”).

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

DECISION

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 <pentium-extreme.com>, <pentium-extreme.info>, <pentium-extreme.net>, <pentium-extreme.org>, <pentium4extreme.biz>, <pentium4extreme.com>, <pentium4extreme.info>, <pentium4extreme.net>, <centrino-duo.biz>, <centrino-duo.com>, <centrino-duo.info>, <centrino-duo.net>, <centrino-duo.org>, <centrinoduo.biz>, <centrinoduo.com>, <centrinoduo.info>, <centrinoduo.net>, <centrinoduo.org>, <centrino-solo.biz>, <centrino-solo.com>,

Louis E. Condon, Panelist

Dated: April 26, 2006

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page

National Arbitration Forum