Patrick J. Kennedy v. Domain Admin Inc
Claim Number: FA0604000677230
Complainant is Patrick J. Kennedy (“Complainant”), represented by Carrie L. Johnson, of Fulbright & Jaworski, 2100 IDS Center, 80 S. Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Respondent is Domain Admin Inc (“Respondent”), GPO 7628, Central, Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <thewatermark.com>, registered with Nameview, 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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 11, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 12, 2006.
On April 21, 2006, Nameview, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <thewatermark.com> domain name is registered with Nameview, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nameview, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameview, 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 April 27, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 17, 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@thewatermark.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 22, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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 <thewatermark.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WATERMARK mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <thewatermark.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <thewatermark.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Patrick J. Kennedy, is the owner of the Watermark Hotel & Spa located in San Antonio, Texas. Complainant’s hotel has garnered a great deal of national and worldwide recognition, including recognition as one of the fifty best hotels in the world in Condé Nast Traveler Readers’ Choice Awards for 2005. Complainant holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the WATERMARK mark (Reg. No. 2,067,410 issued June 3, 1997).
Respondent registered the <thewatermark.com> domain name on December 28, 2001. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to its Commercial website that features links to competing third-party travel and hotel websites.
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 submitted evidence of its registration of
the WATERMARK mark with the USPTO. The
Panel finds that such evidence establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
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.”); see also 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.”).
Respondent’s <thewatermark.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WATERMARK mark because Respondent’s domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adding only the article “the” and the generic top-level domain “.com.” The addition of the article “the” to Complainant’s mark does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See John Fairfax Publ’ns Pty Ltd. v. Pro-Life Domains Not for Sale, FA 213460 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 6, 2004) (“The addition of the article ‘the’ does not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Stealth Commerce, FA 109746 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2002) (“[T]he addition of the [article] ‘the’ to the beginning of the domain names fails to make them separate and distinct, as distinguishable from Complainant’s marks.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant established that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained in its entirety in the disputed domain name. Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights in the disputed domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden is on Complainant to prove Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”).
Respondent is using the <thewatermark.com>
domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website that
features links to competing third-party travel and hotel websites. Respondent’s use of a domain name that is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s WATERMARK mark to redirect Internet users
interested in Complainant’s services to a website that offers links to services
in competition with Complainant is not a use in connection with a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.
v. 24HourNames.com-Quality Domains For Sale, FA 187429 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Sep. 26, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of the
<24hrsfitness.com>, <24-hourfitness.com> and
<24hoursfitness.com> domain names to redirect Internet users to a website
featuring advertisements and links to Complainant’s competitors could not be
considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use); 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.”).
Moreover, Complainant asserts, without contradiction from Respondent, that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <thewatermark.com> domain name nor authorized to use a domain name featuring Complainant’s mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) a respondent is not a licensee of a complainant; (2) complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede that respondent’s domain name registration; (3) that respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where a respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from a complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleged that Respondent acted in bad faith by registering and using a domain name that contains Complainant’s registered mark in its entirety. Respondent is using the <thewatermark.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website that features links to competing third-party websites. The Panel finds that such use constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith registration and use under 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)).
Based on the uncontested evidence presented by Complainant, the Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to a website offering links to competing travel and hotel services. Respondent’s domain name incorporating Complainant’s mark is capable of creating confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and resulting website. Thus, Respondent’s use of the <thewatermark.com> domain name is tantamount to 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 <thewatermark.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: June 5, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum