Advanta Corp. v. Bret Beresford-Wood
Claim Number: FA0605000713740
Complainant is Advanta Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer C. O'Neill, of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP, 1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2097. Respondent is Bret Beresford-Wood (“Respondent”), 5320 West Broken Tee Road, Rathdrum, ID 83858.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <advantastore.com>, registered with Bulkregister, LLC.
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 May 23, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 25, 2006.
On May 23, 2006, Bulkregister, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <advantastore.com> domain name is registered with Bulkregister, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bulkregister, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister, LLC 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 May 30, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 19, 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@advantastore.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 22, 2006, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <advantastore.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADVANTA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <advantastore.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <advantastore.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Advanta Corp., has been providing financial services for many years and has spent millions of dollars in marketing and advertising to establish its goodwill and name in the financial business world. Complainant holds numerous registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its ADVANTA mark (Reg. 1,611,541 issued August 28, 1990).
Respondent registered the <advantastore.com> domain name on November 16, 1999. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website featuring links for credit repair services, which are related to 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s federal registrations
with the USPTO sufficiently establish Complainant’s rights in the ADVANTA
mark. 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 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 <advantastore.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADVANTA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as it contains Complainant’s entire mark and adds the term “store.” The addition of this term to Complainant’s mark does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark. In Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001), the panel found that there was confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contained the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term. See 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). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been
satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <advantastore.com> domain name. Complainant must first make a prima facie case in support of its allegations, and the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does not have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that 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 Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that, absent evidence of preparation to use the domain name for a legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with the respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests).
Respondent’s failure to answer the complaint raises a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <advantastore.com> domain name. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed 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). However, the Panel will now examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not authorized to use
Complainant’s ADVANTA mark, and that Respondent is not associated with
Complainant in any way. Respondent’s WHOIS
information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed
domain name. There is also no evidence
in the record to suggest that Respondent is or has ever been known by the
disputed domain name. In Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) the panel found that the respondent did
not have rights in a domain name where the respondent was not known by the
mark. See 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.”). Consequently,
the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The evidence on record indicates
that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a
website offering credit repair services, which are related to Complainant’s
financial service offerings. Thus, the
Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not
constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶
4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty.
Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's
demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a
website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering
of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Am. Online,
Inc. v. Advanced Membership Servs., Inc., FA 180703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
26, 2003) (“Respondent's registration and use of the <gayaol.com> domain
name with the intent to divert Internet users to Respondent's website suggests
that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii).”).
Moreover, Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant. The Panel finds that such an offer for commercial gain is evidence that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. Domains, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name is further evidenced by Respondent’s attempt to sell its domain name registration to Complainant, the rightful holder of the RED CROSS mark.”); see also 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s
ADVANTA mark in the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of confusion as
to Complainant’s association with the corresponding website. The Panel finds that such use constitutes
bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29,
2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously
connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood
of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs.,
D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use
of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are
offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the
complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site).
Additionally, the Panel
finds that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name is evidence of
bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See 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).”); see
also Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding
that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is
demanded, are evidence of bad faith”).
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 <advantastore.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: July 5, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum