DECISION

 

V&S Vin & Sprit Aktiebolag v. Almgreen.com a/k/a Martin Almgren

Claim Number: FA0107000097853

 

PARTIES

Complainant is V&S Vin & Sprit Aktiebolag, Stockholm, Sweden (“Complainant”) represented by Joanne Ludovici-Lint, of McDermott, Will & Emery.  Respondent is Almgreen.com a/k/a Martin Almgren, Haines City, FL, USA (“Respondent”).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <absolutporn.com> registered with eNom.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on July 3, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 5, 2001.

 

On July 5, 2001, eNom confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <absolutporn.com> is registered with eNom and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  eNom has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom 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 July 6, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 26, 2001 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@absolutporn.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 30, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the 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 Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The <absolutporn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous ABSOLUT mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

The disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Since 1979, Complainant has used its ABSOLUT mark in connection with the advertising and sale of a variety of products and services, including inter alia, vodka and entertainment services by means of a global computer network.  Complainant is the owner of over fifteen (15) United States registered trademarks on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, several of which have achieved incontestable status.

 

Complainant registered its ABSOLUT mark as early as October 23, 1984, as Registration No. 1,302,003, located on the Principal Register of the Patent and Trademark Office.

 

Respondent registered the <absolutporn.com> domain name on June 2, 2001.  The disputed domain name is linked to a website offering pornographic adult entertainment services.

 

DISCUSSION

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 the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the ABSOLUT mark, through its registration on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  Furthermore, the <absolutporn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ABSOULT mark, as it contains Complainant’s famous registered mark in its entirety combined with a generic word: “porn.”  The addition of a generic word to Complainant’s mark, makes the disputed domain confusingly similar.  See Yahoo! Inc. v. Casino Yahoo, Inc., D2000-0660 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2000) (finding the domain name <casinoyahoo.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark).

 

The Panel therefore finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.  It is well established that when a Respondent fails to submit a Response, a Panel may take all of Complainant’s allegations as true.  See 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”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint).

 

Furthermore, there is a presumption that a Respondent has no rights or legitimate

interest in a disputed domain name when they fail to submit a response.  See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

 

Respondent’s use of the <absolutporn.com> domain name, to redirect Internet users to websites offering pornographic material, permits a finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name.  See National Football League Prop., Inc., et al. v. One Sex Entm't. Co., D2000-0118 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names "chargergirls.com" and "chargergirls.net" where the Respondent linked these domain names to its pornographic website).

 

The Panel therefore finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The registration and use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites offering pornographic material constitutes a finding of bad faith registration and use.  See Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (use of another's well known mark to provide a link to a pornographic site is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that association of confusingly similar domain name with pornographic website can constitute bad faith).

 

Furthermore, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, assumedly for commercial gain, to redirect Internet users to another website by creating a likelihood of confusion is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv).  See Land O' Lakes Inc. v. Offbeat Media Inc., FA 96451 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iv) where Respondent utilized a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and used a confusingly similar pornographic depiction of the Complainant’s registered trademark on its web site that may cause confusion as to the source or affiliation of the site); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent linked the domain name in question to websites displaying banner advertisements and pornographic material).

 

The Panel therefore finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <absolutporn.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)

 

Dated: July 31, 2001

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page