Expedia, Inc. v. Vinyl Grooves, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0608000781917
Complainant is Expedia, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sanjiv D. Sarwate, of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5000, Chicago, IL 60606. Respondent is Vinyl Grooves, Inc. (“Respondent”), PO Box 85, Carson, NM 87517.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sexpedia.com>, registered with Dstr Acquisition Vii, 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.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 21, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 23, 2006.
On August 24, 2006, Dstr Acquisition Vii, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sexpedia.com> domain name is registered with Dstr Acquisition Vii, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dstr Acquisition Vii, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dstr Acquisition Vii, 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 August 25, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 14, 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@sexpedia.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 20, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 <sexpedia.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EXPEDIA.COM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sexpedia.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <sexpedia.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Expedia, Inc., is a leading online provider of airline, hotel, and rental car reservations for destinations in the United States and around the world. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations worldwide including the EXPEDIA.COM mark which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,405,746 issued November 21, 2000).
Respondent registered the <sexpedia.com> domain name on March 5, 2001. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring photos and links to various adult oriented 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 established rights in the EXPEDIA.COM mark through registration with the USPTO. 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 Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <sexpedia.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s disputed domain name contains Complainant’s entire EXPEDIA.COM mark and adds the letter “s.” The Panel finds that such small distinctions in an otherwise identical mark fails to differentiate Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s well-known mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that <oicq.net> and <oicq.com> are confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, ICQ).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <sexpedia.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant’s contention creates a prima facie case in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), resulting in the shifting of the burden of proof from Complainant to Respondent. 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 asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or licensed to register names featuring Complainant’s mark. In the absence of evidence showing otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest 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).
Respondent is using the <sexpedia.com> domain name for the provision of displaying provocative images and links to various adult oriented websites. The Panel infers that Respondent is receiving click-through fees for its use of the disputed domain name. As such, Respondent is not using the <sexpedia.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (“Respondent's use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant's business does not represent 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 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); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost In Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of its domain name to link unsuspecting Internet traffic to an adult orientated website, containing images of scantily clad women in provocative poses, did not constitute a connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain for the purposes of providing adult oriented material as well as links to other providers of such material, is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, which has been found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, in connection with adult oriented material is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Horner, D2002-0029 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2002) (holding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s mark to post adult oriented material and to publicize hyperlinks to additional adult oriented websites evidenced bad faith use and registration of the domain name); see also Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that absent contrary evidence, linking the domain names in question to graphic, adult-oriented websites is evidence of bad faith).
Moreover, Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <sexpedia.com> domain name is likely to cause confusion among Internet users as to Complainant’s sponsorship of or affiliation with the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is commercially benefiting from this confusion through the collection of click-through fees for each misdirected Internet user. As such, Respondent’s use is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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.’”); §ee also 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).
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 <sexpedia.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: October 3, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum