Advanta Corp. v. Try Searching
Claim Number: FA0705000980745
Complainant is Advanta Corp (“Complainant”), represented by Bruce
A. McDonald, of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain name at issue is <mcardmyway.com>, <mcyardmyway.com>, <mmycardmyway.com>, <my-card-myway.com>, <myardmyway.com>, <mycaadmyway.com>, <mycaardmyway.com>, <mycadmyway.com>, <mycadrmyway.com>, <mycarbmyway.com>, <mycarddmyway.com>, <mycarddyway.com>, <mycardmmway.com>, <mycardmmyway.com>, <mycardmway.com>, <mycardmwyay.com>, <mycardmyawy.com>, <mycardmyay.com>, <mycardmyqay.com>, <mycardmyuay.com>, <mycardmywa.com>, <mycardmywaa.com>, <mycardmywaay.com>, <mycardmywayy.com>, <mycardmywway.com>, <mycardmywwy.com>, <mycardmywya.com>, <mycardmyyay.com>, <mycardmyyway.com>, <mycardymway.com>, <mycardyway.com>, <mycargmyway.com>, <mycarjmyway.com>, <mycarmdyway.com>, <mycarrdmyway.com>, <mycarrmyway.com>, <myccardmyway.com>, <myccrdmyway.com>, <mycradmyway.com>, <mycrdmyway.com>, <mycreditcard-myway.com>, <mywaymycard.com>, <myyardmyway.com>, <myycardmyway.com>, and <ymcardmyway.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On May 10, 2007, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <mcardmyway.com>, <mcyardmyway.com>, <mmycardmyway.com>, <my-card-myway.com>, <myardmyway.com>, <mycaadmyway.com>, <mycaardmyway.com>, <mycadmyway.com>, <mycadrmyway.com>, <mycarbmyway.com>, <mycarddmyway.com>, <mycarddyway.com>, <mycardmmway.com>, <mycardmmyway.com>, <mycardmway.com>, <mycardmwyay.com>, <mycardmyawy.com>, <mycardmyay.com>, <mycardmyqay.com>, <mycardmyuay.com>, <mycardmywa.com>, <mycardmywaa.com>, <mycardmywaay.com>, <mycardmywayy.com>, <mycardmywway.com>, <mycardmywwy.com>, <mycardmywya.com>, <mycardmyyay.com>, <mycardmyyway.com>, <mycardymway.com>, <mycardyway.com>, <mycargmyway.com>, <mycarjmyway.com>, <mycarmdyway.com>, <mycarrdmyway.com>, <mycarrmyway.com>, <myccardmyway.com>, <myccrdmyway.com>, <mycradmyway.com>, <mycrdmyway.com>, <mycreditcard-myway.com>, <mywaymycard.com>, <myyardmyway.com>, <myycardmyway.com>, and <ymcardmyway.com> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 May 18, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 7, 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@mcardmyway.com, postmaster@mcyardmyway.com, postmaster@mmycardmyway.com, postmaster@my-card-my-way.com, postmaster@myardmyway.com, postmaster@mycaadmyway.com, postmaster@mycaardmyway.com, postmaster@mycadmyway.com, postmaster@mycadrmyway.com, postmaster@mycarbmyway.com, postmaster@mycarddmyway.com, postmaster@mycarddyway.com, postmaster@mycardmmway.com, postmaster@mycardmmyway.com, postmaster@mycardmway.com, postmaster@mycardmwyay.com, postmaster@mycardmyawy.com, postmaster@mycardmyay.com, postmaster@mycardmyqay.com, postmaster@mycardmyuay.com, postmaster@mycardmywa.com, postmaster@mycardmywaa.com, postmaster@mycardmywaay.com, postmaster@mycardmywayy.com, postmaster@mycardmywway.com, postmaster@mycardmywwy.com, postmaster@mycardmywya.com, postmaster@mycardmyyay.com, postmaster@mycardmyyway.com, postmaster@mycardymway.com, postmaster@mycardyway.com, postmaster@mycargmyway.com, postmaster@mycarjmyway.com, postmaster@mycarmdyway.com, postmaster@mycarrdmyway.com, postmaster@mycarrmyway.com, postmaster@myccardmyway.com, postmaster@myccrdmyway.com postmaster@mycradmyway.com, postmaster@mycrdmyway.com, postmaster@mycreditcard-myway.com, postmaster@mywaymycard.com, postmaster@myyardmyway.com, postmaster@myycardmyway.com, and postmaster@ymcardmyway.com 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <mcardmyway.com>, <mcyardmyway.com>, <mmycardmyway.com>, <my-card-myway.com>, <myardmyway.com>, <mycaadmyway.com>, <mycaardmyway.com>, <mycadmyway.com>, <mycadrmyway.com>, <mycarbmyway.com>, <mycarddmyway.com>, <mycarddyway.com>, <mycardmmway.com>, <mycardmmyway.com>, <mycardmway.com>, <mycardmwyay.com>, <mycardmyawy.com>, <mycardmyay.com>, <mycardmyqay.com>, <mycardmyuay.com>, <mycardmywa.com>, <mycardmywaa.com>, <mycardmywaay.com>, <mycardmywayy.com>, <mycardmywway.com>, <mycardmywwy.com>, <mycardmywya.com>, <mycardmyyay.com>, <mycardmyyway.com>, <mycardymway.com>, <mycardyway.com>, <mycargmyway.com>, <mycarjmyway.com>, <mycarmdyway.com>, <mycarrdmyway.com>, <mycarrmyway.com>, <myccardmyway.com>, <myccrdmyway.com>, <mycradmyway.com>, <mycrdmyway.com>, <mycreditcard-myway.com>, <mywaymycard.com>, <myyardmyway.com>, <myycardmyway.com>, and <ymcardmyway.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MY CARD MY WAY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <mcardmyway.com>, <mcyardmyway.com>, <mmycardmyway.com>, <my-card-myway.com>, <myardmyway.com>, <mycaadmyway.com>, <mycaardmyway.com>, <mycadmyway.com>, <mycadrmyway.com>, <mycarbmyway.com>, <mycarddmyway.com>, <mycarddyway.com>, <mycardmmway.com>, <mycardmmyway.com>, <mycardmway.com>, <mycardmwyay.com>, <mycardmyawy.com>, <mycardmyay.com>, <mycardmyqay.com>, <mycardmyuay.com>, <mycardmywa.com>, <mycardmywaa.com>, <mycardmywaay.com>, <mycardmywayy.com>, <mycardmywway.com>, <mycardmywwy.com>, <mycardmywya.com>, <mycardmyyay.com>, <mycardmyyway.com>, <mycardymway.com>, <mycardyway.com>, <mycargmyway.com>, <mycarjmyway.com>, <mycarmdyway.com>, <mycarrdmyway.com>, <mycarrmyway.com>, <myccardmyway.com>, <myccrdmyway.com>, <mycradmyway.com>, <mycrdmyway.com>, <mycreditcard-myway.com>, <mywaymycard.com>, <myyardmyway.com>, <myycardmyway.com>, and <ymcardmyway.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <mcardmyway.com>, <mcyardmyway.com>, <mmycardmyway.com>, <my-card-myway.com>, <myardmyway.com>, <mycaadmyway.com>, <mycaardmyway.com>, <mycadmyway.com>, <mycadrmyway.com>, <mycarbmyway.com>, <mycarddmyway.com>, <mycarddyway.com>, <mycardmmway.com>, <mycardmmyway.com>, <mycardmway.com>, <mycardmwyay.com>, <mycardmyawy.com>, <mycardmyay.com>, <mycardmyqay.com>, <mycardmyuay.com>, <mycardmywa.com>, <mycardmywaa.com>, <mycardmywaay.com>, <mycardmywayy.com>, <mycardmywway.com>, <mycardmywwy.com>, <mycardmywya.com>, <mycardmyyay.com>, <mycardmyyway.com>, <mycardymway.com>, <mycardyway.com>, <mycargmyway.com>, <mycarjmyway.com>, <mycarmdyway.com>, <mycarrdmyway.com>, <mycarrmyway.com>, <myccardmyway.com>, <myccrdmyway.com>, <mycradmyway.com>, <mycrdmyway.com>, <mycreditcard-myway.com>, <mywaymycard.com>, <myyardmyway.com>, <myycardmyway.com>, and <ymcardmyway.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Advanta Corp., is a prominent financial services company that is one of the nation’s largest issuers of credit cards to small businesses and professionals. In conjunction with the provision of these products and services, Complainant has used the MY CARD MY WAY mark continuously and exclusively since November 2002.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names 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.
Complainant asserts rights in the MY CARD MY WAY mark
through the continuous and exclusive use of the mark since November of 2002. Although Complainant does not have a current
USPTO trademark registration, the Panel finds that a federal trademark
registration is unnecessary to establish rights in the mark pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(i). See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13,
2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the complainant's trademark
or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such
rights to exist); see also
Complainant contends that its use of the MY CARD MY WAY mark has been exclusive and continuous for over four years. Complainant presents evidence that its mark appears, among other places, at Google’s website, which identifies Complainant as the source of services offered under the MY CARD MY WAY mark. The Panel finds that Complainant’s exclusive and continuous use of the MY CARD MY WAY mark for over four years sufficiently establishes common law rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also Keppel TatLee Bank v. Taylor, D2001-0168 (WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“[O]n account of long and substantial use of [KEPPEL BANK] in connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the common law.”).
The disputed domain names all contain slight derivations of
Complainant’s MY CARD MY WAY mark. The <my-card-myway.com> domain name contains
Complainant’s mark in its entirety and adds two hyphens. All of the disputed domain names contain the
generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
The Panel finds that misspelled versions of Complainant’s mark, the
addition of hyphens to an otherwise identical mark, as well as the addition of
a gTLD suggests that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO
June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or
“.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether
it is identical or confusingly similar); see
also Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball,
D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation
marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a
mark"); see also Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA
97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
In instances where Complainant has made a prima facie case in support of its
allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth concrete evidence
indicating that it has rights or legitimate interests in accordance with Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii). See SEMCO Prods., LLC v. dmg world media (
Complainant is found to have established a prima facie case.
Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to parked websites that redirect unsuspecting Internet users to third-party commercial websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hale Prods., Inc. v. Hart Int’l Inc., FA 198031 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 2, 2003) (the panel found that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the <jawsoflife.com> domain name because the respondent was diverting Internet users to the website of one of the complainant’s competitors); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
A review of Respondent’s WHOIS information reveals that the
registrant of the disputed domain names is “Try Searching.” In light of the lack of any countervailing
evidence proffered by Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s disputed domain names are misspelled versions of Complainant’s mark. The use of a confusingly similar domain name that is a misspelled version of a mark is known as “typosquatting.” The Panel finds Respondent has engaged in typosquatting and, therefore, has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site.”); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent used the typosquatted <wwwdewalt.com> domain name to divert Internet users to a search engine webpage, and failed to respond to the complaint).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites
featuring links to competitors’ websites.
The Panel finds that such use suggests a disruption of Complainant’s
business and, consequently, evinces registration and use in bad faith pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt.
Services, FA 877982 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (the panel concluded that the use of a confusingly similar
domain name to attract Internet users to a website containing commercial links
to the websites of the complainant’s competitors represented bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (the panel
also found bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where
a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search
engine with links to the complainant’s competitors. Consequently, Respondent’s registration and
use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith according to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii)).
Presumably, Respondent receives monetary gain from the redirection of Internet traffic. It is likely unsuspecting Internet users will become confused as to the affliation of the resulting websites. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use amounts to an attraction for commercial gain, which suggests registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting from click-through fees); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
As referenced above, Respondent has engaged in a practice known as typosquatting. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Canadian Tire Corp. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because the respondent “created ‘a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location’. . . through Respondent’s persistent practice of ‘typosquatting’”); see also Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <mcardmyway.com>, <mcyardmyway.com>, <mmycardmyway.com>, <my-card-myway.com>, <myardmyway.com>, <mycaadmyway.com>, <mycaardmyway.com>, <mycadmyway.com>, <mycadrmyway.com>, <mycarbmyway.com>, <mycarddmyway.com>, <mycarddyway.com>, <mycardmmway.com>, <mycardmmyway.com>, <mycardmway.com>, <mycardmwyay.com>, <mycardmyawy.com>, <mycardmyay.com>, <mycardmyqay.com>, <mycardmyuay.com>, <mycardmywa.com>, <mycardmywaa.com>, <mycardmywaay.com>, <mycardmywayy.com>, <mycardmywway.com>, <mycardmywwy.com>, <mycardmywya.com>, <mycardmyyay.com>, <mycardmyyway.com>, <mycardymway.com>, <mycardyway.com>, <mycargmyway.com>, <mycarjmyway.com>, <mycarmdyway.com>, <mycarrdmyway.com>, <mycarrmyway.com>, <myccardmyway.com>, <myccrdmyway.com>, <mycradmyway.com>, <mycrdmyway.com>, <mycreditcard-myway.com>, <mywaymycard.com>, <myyardmyway.com>, <myycardmyway.com>, and <ymcardmyway.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: June 20, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum