Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Jonathan Richter
Claim Number: FA0702000918678
Complainant is Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Heidi
C. Constantine, of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 1
MetLife Plaza, 27-02 Queens Plaza North, Long Island City, NY 11101. Respondent is Jonathan Richter (“Respondent”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <wetlife.org>, registered with Melbourne It Ltd.
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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On March 6, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 26, 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@wetlife.org 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 <wetlife.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wetlife.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wetlife.org> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Since 1968, Complainant, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, has continuously and extensively used the METLIFE mark in connection
with insurance, annuities, pension fund, residential and commercial mortgage,
lending, real estate brokerage and management services. In
Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for the
METLIFE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”),
including Reg. No. 1,541,862 issued
Respondent’s <wetlife.org>
domain name, which it registered 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.
Through registration of the METLIFE mark with the USPTO,
Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net,
FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (“Complainant’s numerous registrations
for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world are sufficient to establish Complainant’s
rights in the HONEYWELL mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also ESPN, Inc. v. MySportCenter.com,
FA 95326 (Nat. Arb. Forum
However, the <wetlife.org> domain name is not
confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark. Respondent’s domain name substitutes the
letter “w” for “m,” creating the term “wet,” which has an entirely different
connotation than Complainant’s METLIFE mark.
Consequently, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is not confusingly
similar to the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See iLeads.com LLC v. Electronic Marketing Sys.,
Inc., FA
187636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 13, 2003) (finding that the <aleads.com>
domain name was not confusingly similar to the complainant’s ILEADS.COM mark
because the letters “a” and “i” are not close to each other on the keyboard, do
not look alike, and are not commonly substituted for each other); see also Google, Inc. v. Wolfe, FA 275419 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel concludes that Complainant has failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Because Complainant
has failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the Panel need not analyze the other
two elements of the Policy. See
Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding
that because Complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy,
Complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into
the remaining element unnecessary); see also 01059 GmbH v.
VARTEX Media Mktg. GmbH/Stefan Heisig,
D2004-0541 (WIPO Sept. 10, 2004) (holding that if the complainant
does not satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by showing it has rights in a mark, the panel
need not consider whether the respondent has rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) or whether it registered and
is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: April 7, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum