Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Yang Kyung Won
Claim Number: FA0612000863000
Complainant is Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Heidi C. Constantine, of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 1 MetLife Plaza, 27-01 Queens Plaza North, Long Island City, NY 11101. Respondent is Yang Kyung Won (“Respondent”), Shinhwa apt 504-504, Jeongja-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam Si 463-010, KR.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <metlifekr.com>, registered with Maindomain.ca.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On December 14, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 3, 2007 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@metlifekr.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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <metlifekr.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <metlifekr.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <metlifekr.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, is a leader in the insurance and financial services industry. In connection with the provision of these services, Complainant has registered a number of trade and service marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) including the METLIFE mark (Reg. No. 1,541,862 issued May 30, 1989).
Respondent registered the <metlifekr.com>
domain name
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 maintains rights in the METLIFE mark through
registration with the USPTO. The Panel
finds that Complainant’s registration and use of the METLIFE mark through
registration with the USPTO. The Panel
finds that Complainant’s registration and use of the METLIFE mark is sufficient
to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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.”); see also Innomed
Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171
(Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant also contends that
Respondent’s <metlifekr.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark. Respondent’s disputed domain name features
Complainant’s entire METLIFE mark and adds the geographic identifier “kr,” an
abbreviation of the
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <metlifekr.com> domain name. In instances where Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to the Respondent to set forth concrete evidence that it does possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 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).
The disputed domain name does not resolve to any
content. 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
Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding
that when the respondent declares its intent to develop a website, “[Policy ¶]
4(c)(i) requires Respondent to show 1) ‘demonstrable’ evidence of such
preparations to use the domain name, and 2) that such preparations were
undertaken ‘before any notice to [Respondent] of the dispute’”); see also
LFP, Inc. v. B & J Props., FA 109697 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant contends that Respondent is neither commonly
known by the <metlifekr.com>
domain name nor authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s
METLIFE mark in any way. Considering the
lack of evidence to suggest otherwise , the Panel finds that Respondent has not
established rights or legitimate interests in accordance with 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 <metlifekr.com> domain name to forward Internet users to a click-through site from which Respondent presumably receives fees for each click-through completed. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for commercial gain evinces registration and use in bad faith in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website).
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 <metlifekr.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: January 23, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum