Advanta Corp. v. Perry DeSantis
Claim Number: FA0609000809768
Complainant is Advanta Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Bruce A. McDonald, of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103-7213. Respondent is Perry DeSantis (“Respondent”), 420 US HWY 1 #16, North Palm Beach, FL, 33403.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically September 29, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint September 29, 2006.
On September 30, 2006, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com> domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Daddy Software, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, Inc. registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On October 3, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 23, 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@advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com by email.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 27, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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. The domain name that Respondent registered, <advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADVANTA mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Advanta Corporation, is one of the United States’ largest issuers of credit cards to small businesses and business professionals. In connection with the provision of these services, Complainant holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Complainant first registered the ADVANTA mark with the USPTO on April 12, 1988 (Reg. No. 1,487,579).
Respondent registered the <advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com> domain name December 10, 2003. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website with links to other websites offering competing products and services.
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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 asserts rights in the ADVANTA mark through registration with the USPTO. The Panel finds that Complainant’s trademark registration with the USPTO mark and extensive use of the ADVANTA mark for over fifteen years is sufficient to establish rights 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 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 the disputed domain name that Respondent registered, <advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s disputed domain name features Complainant’s entire ADVANTA mark and adds the descriptive terms “platinum,” “business,” and “card.” The Panel finds that the addition of descriptive terms to an otherwise identical mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. 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); see also Novell, Inc. v. Taeho Kim, FA 167964 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2003) (finding the <novellsolutions.com> domain name confusingly similar to the NOVELL mark despite the addition of the descriptive term “solutions” because even though “the word ‘solutions’ is descriptive when used for software, Respondent has used this word paired with Complainant's trademark NOVELL”).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant established with extrinsic evidence filed in this proceeding that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. Complainant alleged that Respondent lacks such rights to or legitimate interests in the <advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com> domain name. In instances where Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth concrete evidence that it does possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See 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 onto 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.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed
domain name to resolve to a website that features links to various competing
commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral
fees. The Panel finds that Respondent’s
use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc.
v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (finding that the
respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a
pay-per-click search engine, in competition with the complainant, was not a bona
fide offering of goods or services); see also Coryn
Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959
(Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the
domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to
divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with
those offered by the complainant under its marks).
Respondent is not commonly known by the <advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com> domain name and Complainant asserted that it did not authorize Respondent to register a domain name featuring Complainant’s ADVANTA mark or use the mark in any way. Respondent has not come forward with any information that would suggest that Respondent is known commonly by Complainant’s mark or that Respondent has Complainant’s permission to use the mark. In the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due to the fame of Complainant’s mark there must be strong evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name in order to find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). However, there is no evidence on record, and Respondent has not come forward with any proof to establish that it is commonly known as CELEBREXRX or <celebrexrx.com>.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶
4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent is acted in bad faith
in registering and using the <advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com>
domain name to operate a website that provides Internet users with links to
various financial services websites that compete with Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use
constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and evidences bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368
(Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain
name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain
name to promote competing auction sites); see also Disney
Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly
similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's
website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration
and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”).
Further, Respondent’s use will likely cause confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship of and affiliation with the resulting websites. The Panel finds that such use of a domain name for Respondent’s own commercial gain is additional evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating that “[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website” in holding that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Warren, FA 204147 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (“Although Complainant’s principal website is <century21.com>, many Internet users are likely to use search engines to find Complainant’s website, only to be mislead to Respondent’s website at the <century21realty.biz> domain name, which features links for competing real estate websites. Therefore, it is likely that Internet users seeking Complainant’s website, but who end up at Respondent’s website, will be confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <advantaplatinumbusinesscard.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: November 10, 2006.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum