Western Union Holdings, Inc. v. Domain Drop S.A.
Claim Number: FA0704000971146
Complainant is Western Union Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Bradley
E. Prendergast, of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <quickfindwesternunion.com>, registered with Domaindoorman, LLC.
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.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 26, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 27, 2007.
On April 26, 2007, Domaindoorman, LLC, confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <quickfindwesternunion.com> domain name is registered with Domaindoorman, LLC, and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domaindoorman, LLC, has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domaindoorman, LLC, 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 27, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 17, 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@quickfindwesternunion.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 23, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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:
Complainant is a globally recognized funds transfer service, whose product offerings include money transfers, electronic funds transfers, and bill payment services.
Complainant employs the
In connection with its offerings of such goods and services, Complainant has registered numerous trademarks and service marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including the service mark WESTERN UNION (Reg. No. 1,818,161, issued January 25, 1994).
Complainant has actively and continuously promoted its
The term “quickfind” describes an online tool associated with Complainant’s WESTERN UNION QUICK COLLECT bill payment service.
Complainant has used the “quickfind” term in connection with
its
Complainant operates a website at the domain name <quickfind.westernunion.com>.
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s
Respondent registered the contested domain name, <quickfindwesternunion.com>, on February 12, 2006.
Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website displaying a series of links to third-party sites, many of which are direct financial services competitors of Complainant.
Respondent’s <quickfindwesternunion.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <quickfindwesternunion.com>.
Respondent registered and uses the <quickfindwesternunion.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a 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 same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
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 a 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:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Through its registration with the USPTO, Complainant has
established rights in the
Respondent’s <quickfindwesternunion.com>
domain name employs Complainant’s
The Panel therefore finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <quickfindwesternunion.com> domain name. It is incumbent upon Complainant to make out a prima facie showing demonstrating Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has made this initial showing, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See 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).” See also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where a complainant has asserted that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to a domain name, it is incumbent on that respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).
Because of Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s allegations, the Panel may infer that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <quickfindwesternunion.com>. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002): “Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.” See also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that, by not submitting a response, a respondent failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). However, the Panel will nonetheless examine the record to determine if there is any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
In this connection, we first note that Complainant asserts,
and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent is not authorized to use
Complainant’s
Further, it is undisputed that Respondent’s <quickfindwesternunion.com>
domain name resolves to an array of third-party links, many of which are in
direct competition with the business of Complainant. We may infer from this that, given the
likelihood of confusion between Complainant’s
The Panel thus finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
On the facts before us, we may infer that Respondent’s use
of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website linking Internet users to
third-party products and services is intended to capitalize on the likelihood
of confusion with Complainant’s
In addition, it appears that Respondent registered the <quickfindwesternunion.com> domain name with at least constructive knowledge of
Complainant’s rights in the
For these reasons, the Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <quickfindwesternunion.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: May 29, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum