International Information System Security Certification Consortium (ISC)² v. HobbyRegistry.com c/o Hobby Registry
Claim Number: FA0701000904136
Complainant is International Information System Security Certification
Consortium (ISC)2 (“Complainant”), represented by Fatima Lahnin, of Carmody & Torrance LLP, 50 Leavenworth Street, P.O. Box 1110,
Waterbury, CT 06721-1110.
Respondent is HobbyRegistry.com c/o Hobby Registry (“Respondent”), Box,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <isc2.com>, registered with eNom, Inc.
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 February 12, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 5, 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@isc2.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 <isc2.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s (ISC)² mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <isc2.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <isc2.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, International Information System Security
Certification Consortium (ISC)², is a worldwide,
non-profit organization that, inter alia,
certifies information security professionals and administers training and
certification examinations. In
connection with the provision and administration of these services, Complainant
has registered the (ISC)² mark with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,746,114 issued
Respondent registered the <isc2.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 asserts rights in the (ISC)²
mark through registration with the USPTO.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s timely registration and subsequent
use of the (ISC)² mark establishes its rights in the
mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs.,
FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant further asserts that
the <isc2.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its (ISC)² mark. The disputed
domain name contains all of the letters and numbers of the protected mark, in
the correct order, and merely deletes the parentheses and superscript and adds the
generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
The Panel finds that the removal of parentheses and a superscript and
the addition of a gTLD to an otherwise identical mark fails to sufficiently
distinguish the domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Rollerblade,
Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the
top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the
domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or
confusingly similar); see also
International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium (ISC)² v.
Rifin d.o.o., FA 145282 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
In instances where Complainant has made a prima facie case bolstering its
allegations, the burden then shifts to Respondent to prove that it has rights
or legitimate interests in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See
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); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin
Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring a search engine that offers links to both competitors of Complainant as well as non-competitors of Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent’s diversionary use of its disputed domain name to a website featuring links to third-party websites, presumably with the intent of receiving financial remuneration, 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 Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that using a domain name to direct Internet traffic to a website featuring pop-up advertisements and links to various third-party websites is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the registrant presumably receives compensation for each misdirected Internet user); see also 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).
Upon review of Respondent’s WHOIS registration information,
the registrant of the <isc2.com> domain name is “Dr. Marco.” Lacking any evidence to show that “Dr. Marco”
is in any way related to, associated with, or authorized by Complainant, the
Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am. W.
Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat.
Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
The disputed domain name resolves to a search engine website featuring links to Complainant’s competitors, from which Respondent presumably receives monetary gain. The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also 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)).
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 <isc2.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: March 20, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum