Summit Group, LLC v. Dynamic Leisure Corporation
Claim Number: FA0704000953797
Complainant is Summit Group, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Kyle
T. Peterson, 4800 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55427. Respondent is Dynamic Leisure Corporation (“Respondent”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lifestyleloungetravel.com>, registered with Network Solutions, 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.
James A. Crary as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 3, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 3, 2007.
On April 5, 2007, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <lifestyleloungetravel.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On April 9, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 30, 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 email@example.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 6, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Crary as Panelist.
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 <lifestyleloungetravel.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <lifestyleloungetravel.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <lifestyleloungetravel.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Summit Group, LLC, is a company engaged in the promotion of online adult entertainment services. Complainant has used its LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark in connection with its offering of these services since at least 2001. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark (Reg. No. 2,913,057 issued December 21, 2004, filed October 14, 2003, first use in commerce September 1, 2001). Complainant also operates a website at the <lifestylelounge.com> domain name.
Respondent registered the <lifestyleloungetravel.com> domain name on August 3, 2003. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays information on adult-oriented travel vacations.
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 LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark through its trademark registration with the USPTO. Moreover, Complainant has established sufficient common law rights in the mark that pre-date its registration and filing of the trademark application through evidence of the use of the trademark in commerce since 2001. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the complainant need not own a valid trademark registration for the ZEE CINEMA mark in order to demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also S.A. Bendheim Co., Inc. v. Hollander Glass, FA 142318 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2003) (holding that the complainant established rights in the descriptive RESTORATION GLASS mark through proof of secondary meaning associated with the mark).
Respondent’s <lifestyleloungetravel.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as it contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety with the addition of the common word “travel” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the end of the mark. Such additions fail to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with the complainant’s registered mark “llbean” does not circumvent the complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see also Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <lifestyleloungetravel.com> domain name. Complainant has the initial burden of proof in establishing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Respondent’s WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is also no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the <lifestyleloungetravel.com> domain name. Moreover, Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
Respondent’s <lifestyleloungetravel.com> domain name resolves to a website that displays information on adult-oriented travel vacations. Such a use has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business, and as such, is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Advanced Membership Servs., Inc., FA 180703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 26, 2003) (“Respondent's registration and use of the <gayaol.com> domain name with the intent to divert Internet users to Respondent's website suggests that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent is operating the website at the <lifestyleloungetravel.com> domain name for its own commercial benefit by offering services related to services offered by Complainant under its own mark. Moreover, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is capable of creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source and affiliation of Complainant to the disputed domain name and corresponding website. Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under 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 further finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer services similar to those offered by Complainant diverts Internet users attempting to access Complainant’s website to Respondent’s own website for commercial gain. Such use constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Latingrocer.com, FA 94384 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent’s sites pass users through to the respondent’s competing business); see also Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
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 <lifestyleloungetravel.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Crary, Panelist
Dated: May 21, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum