GAAH INC., d/b/a Autointel v. Services LLC
Claim Number: FA0702000925297
Complainant is GAAH INC., d/b/a Autointel (“Complainant”), represented by Hovanes
Margarian, of GAAH INC., d/b/a Autointel,
REGISTRAR
The domain name at issue is <autointel.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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On
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 <autointel.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s AUTOINTEL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <autointel.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <autointel.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, GAAH, Inc., d/b/a Autointel, holds
a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) for the AUTOINTEL mark (Reg. No. 3,070,278 issued
The <autointel.com>
domain name was originally 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
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 AUTOINTEL mark
through registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Innomed
Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum
While the original owner
registered the <autointel.com>
domain name in 1997, years before Complainant’s issued trademark registration,
a panel and a court have both held that the registration date for a disputed
domain name should be considered the most recent transfer date and not the date
of the very first registrant. Therefore,
since Respondent here obtained ownership of the <autointel.com> domain name in November of 2006,
Complainant’s trademark predates Respondent’s registration of the domain
name. The Panel, therefore, finds that
Complainant has established sufficient rights in the AUTOINTEL mark pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See The Ass’n of Junior Leagues Int’l Inc. v. This Domain Name My Be For
Respondent’s <autointel.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s AUTOINTEL mark because Respondent’s
domain name uses Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic
top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to it.
The Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD is not a distinguishing
difference and that Respondent’s disputed domain name is identical to
Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti,
D2000-0493 (WIPO
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights
or legitimate interests in the <autointel.com>
domain name. Complainant must make a prima
facie case and then the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does
have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel assumes that Respondent here has no
rights or legitimate interests because Respondent has failed to respond to the
Complaint. See G.D. Searle v. Martin
Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the <autointel.com> domain name to
redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website displaying links to competing
third-party websites. Respondent’s use
of the domain name to display links to competing websites is not a use in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use under the Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat.
Arb. Forum
Additionally, Respondent has offered no evidence and none
exists in the record to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the <autointel.com> domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies
Respondent as “Moniker Privacy Services.”
Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish rights or legitimate
interests in the <autointel.com>
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee
Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has registered and is using the <autointel.com> domain name, which is
identical to Complainant’s AUTOINTEL mark, in order to redirect Internet users
to Respondent’s website displaying links to competing third-party
websites. The Panel finds that such use
constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
Respondent is using the <autointel.com>
domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website that display
links to competing websites for the assumed profit of Respondent. The Panel finds that because Respondent’s
domain name is identical to Complainant’s AUTOINTEL mark, Internet users will
likely become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with Respondent’s
website. Presumably, Respondent is
profiting from this confusion in the form of click-through fees. As a result, Respondent’s use of the <autointel.com> domain name to
display links to competing websites constitutes bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Warren, FA 204147 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds 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 <autointel.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: April 18, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum