Jagex Limited v. Runos c/o Josh Doucette
Claim Number: FA0612000874811
Complainant is Jagex Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Adam
Taylor, of Adlex Solicitors, 76A
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <jagexlimited.com>, registered with Registerfly.com, 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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On January 4, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 24, 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@jagexlimited.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 <jagexlimited.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JAGEX mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <jagexlimited.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <jagexlimited.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Jagex Limited, has since 2001 carried on the
business of designing, developing, and operating online computer games
including the well-known Internet game “RuneScape.” Complainant offers access to its online
gaming services through the <jagex.com> and <runescape.com> domain
names. Moreover, Complainant owns
trademark rights in the JAGEX mark through registration with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,302,759 issued
Respondent registered the <jagexlimited.com>
domain name 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.
Complainant has established rights in the JAGEX mark through registration with the
USPTO. See Innomed
Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <jagexlimited.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s domain name contains Complainant’s entire JAGEX mark and adds the generic term “limited.” The Panel finds that the addition of a generic term to Complainant’s mark, particularly one that has a connection to Complainant’s organization, fails to sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that “Respondent does not by adding the common descriptive or generic terms ‘corp’, ‘corporation’ and ‘2000’ following ‘PGE’, create new or different marks in which it has rights or legitimate interests, nor does it alter the underlying [PG&E] mark held by Complainant”); 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 contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <jagexlimited.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 Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (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”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <jagexlimited.com> domain name to operate a website that is identical in appearance to Complainant’s legitimate website and that invites Internet users to enter their RuneScape account passwords. The Panel infers that Respondent is profiting from this use by tricking Internet users into divulging their account information for the purpose of gaining access to the virtual items and gaming information contained in the account and subsequently reselling the items and information for monetary gain. Such 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 Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name to redirect “Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients,” is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s website, and is used to acquire personal information from Complainant’s potential associates fraudulently” does not fall within the parameters of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)).
Moreover, Complainant contends that Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed domain name or licensed to register names
featuring Complainant’s mark. Without
evidence to suggest otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent has not
established rights or legitimate interests in the <jagexlimited.com> 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 Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of
the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede
the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the
domain name in question).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the <jagexlimited.com> domain name for
its apparent purpose of misleading Internet users for its own commercial gain
is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Capital One Fin.
Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding
bad faith registration and use because the respondent used the domain name to
redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website
and to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s
clients); see also HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that the respondent registered and used the
domain name in bad faith because it redirected Internet users to a website that
imitated the complainant’s website and was used to fraudulently acquire
personal information from the complainant’s potential associates).
Moreover, upon entering Respondent’s websites, Internet users will likely be confused as to Complainant’s sponsorship of or affiliation with the <jagexlimited.com> domain name. The Panel finds that such use is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to 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 Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).
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 <jagexlimited.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: February 13, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum
[1]
Respondent asserts that he is under the age of 18 and requests that the Panel
redact personal identifying information from this Decision. Although ICANN Policy ¶ 4(j) allows a panel,
in exceptional cases, to redact portions of a decision, the Panel, in the
exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do that because of the serious and
wrongful nature of Respondent’s conduct which is uncontradicted on this
record. Also, the Whois registration
information shows Respondent’s address as “Everett,
NA 98203.” The Panel notes that no state
abbreviation is “NA.” Presumably, the
correct address is ”