Ameriprise Financial, Inc. v.
Claim Number: FA0611000843477
Complainant is Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Shawn
Diedtrich, of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., One Arizona
Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202. Respondent is
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ameripriseautoandhomeinsurance.com> and <ameriprisehomeinsurance.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services, 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
On
On November 20, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 11, 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@ameripriseautoandhomeinsurance.com and postmaster@ameriprisehomeinsurance.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <ameripriseautoandhomeinsurance.com> and <ameriprisehomeinsurance.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERIPRISE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ameripriseautoandhomeinsurance.com> and <ameriprisehomeinsurance.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <ameripriseautoandhomeinsurance.com> and <ameriprisehomeinsurance.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Ameriprise Financial, Inc., is a recognized
leader in the financial services industry.
Complainant has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Internet,
television and print advertising promoting its AMERIPRISE mark. In addition, Complainant filed the AMERIPRISE
mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on
Respondent registered the <ameripriseautoandhomeinsurance.com> and <ameriprisehomeinsurance.com>
domain names on
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.
In accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Complainant is not
required to hold a trademark registration to establish rights in the AMERIPRISE
mark. See British Broad. Corp. v.
Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <ameripriseautoandhomeinsurance.com> and <ameriprisehomeinsurance.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s disputed domain names feature Complainant’s entire AMERIPRISE mark and add the generic terms “auto and home insurance” and “home insurance,” which obviously relate to Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that the addition of generic terms that describe Complainant’s business to an otherwise identical mark fails to sufficiently differentiate a domain name from a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business); see also Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction, Inc., D2001-0075 (WIPO Mar. 6, 2001) (finding that the domain name <christiesauction.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark since it merely adds the word “auction” used in its generic sense).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests in the <ameripriseautoandhomeinsurance.com> and <ameriprisehomeinsurance.com>
domain names. In instances where the
Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the
burden shifts to Respondent to bring forth substantial evidence indicating that
it possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires
v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolve to websites that contain links to websites which feature products that compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Compaq Info. Techs. Group v. Jones, FA 99091 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2001) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that it used to redirect Internet users to a commercial website as part of that website’s affiliate program, where the resultant website contained banner ads as well as various links to offers for free merchandise, including merchandise from the complainant's competitor); see also Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is neither commonly
known by the <ameripriseautoandhomeinsurance.com> and <ameriprisehomeinsurance.com>
domain names nor authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s
AMERIPRISE mark in any way. In
recognition of the lack of evidence suggesting otherwise, the Panel finds that
Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the <ameripriseautoandhomeinsurance.com> and <ameriprisehomeinsurance.com>
domain names to operate websites that feature search engines that direct
Internet users to websites that compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use
constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and evinces bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Latingrocer.com,
FA 94384 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s use will likely cause confusion with regard 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 in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Corp. v.
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 <ameripriseautoandhomeinsurance.com> and <ameriprisehomeinsurance.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: January 3, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum