Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards v. Tuner Events c/o Bill Bolin
Claim Number: FA0705000990677
Complainant is Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer
Collins, of Faegre & Benson, LLP, 1700 Lincoln
St., Suite 3200, Denver, CO 80203-4532.
Respondent is Turner Events c/o Bill Bolin (“Respondent”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <cfpteam.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On May 24, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 13, 2003 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@cfpteam.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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <cfpteam.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CFP mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <cfpteam.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <cfpteam.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, operates a certification program for financial practitioners, requiring applicants to meet the following prerequisites: (1) complete a required course of study in financial planning, (2) pass a mandatory examination, (3) agree to comply with professional and ethical guidelines, (4) comply with annual continuing education requirements, and (5) pay an annual certification fee. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the CFP mark (Reg. No. 1,053,754 issued November 30, 1976).
Respondent registered the <cfpteam.com>
domain name 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s federal registration with
the USPTO sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in the CFP mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s <cfpteam.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s CFP mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as the
disputed domain name contains Complainant’s CFP mark in its entirety and adds
the term “team” and the generic top-level domain “.com.” See Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187
(WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the subject domain name incorporates
the VIAGRA mark in its entirety, and deviates only by the addition of the word
“bomb,” the domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark); see also America. Online Inc. v. Neticq.com Ltd., D2000-1606 (WIPO
Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that the addition of the generic word “Net” to the
complainant’s ICQ mark, makes the <neticq.com> domain name confusingly
similar to the complainant’s mark); see
also Daedong-USA, Inc. v. O’Bryan Implement Sales, FA
210302 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003) (“Respondent's domain name,
<kioti.com>, is identical to Complainant's KIOTI mark because adding a
top-level domain name is irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant initially must establish that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests with respect to the <cfpteam.com> domain name. After Complainant makes out a prima facie case, the burden of proof
shifts, and Respondent must prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name. In this case
Complainant has made a prima facie case
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See
Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376
(WIPO May 14, 2001) (“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.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA
118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not authorized to use
Complainant’s CFP mark and that Respondent is not associated with Complainant
in any way. Furthermore, Respondent’s
WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the <cfpteam.com> domain name. The Panel thus finds that Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee
Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect
Internet users to a website that features links to Complainant’s
competitors. Respondent’s use of a
domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CFP mark to redirect
Internet users interested in Complainant’s products and services to a website
that offers products and services in competition with Complainant 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 of the domain name pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coryn Group,
Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat.
Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleged that Respondent acted in bad faith in
registering and using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
protected mark. Respondent is using the <cfpteam.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s
website that features links to competing products and services. The Panel finds that such use constitutes
disruption and is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA
94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Based on the uncontested evidence presented by Complainant,
the Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting
Internet users to a website offering links to competing products and
services. Respondent’s domain name
incorporating Complainant’s entire mark may create confusion as to Complainant’s
affiliation with, or sponsorship of, the disputed domain name and resulting
website. Thus, Respondent’s use of the <cfpteam.com> domain name amounts to
bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
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 <cfpteam.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dated: June 22, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum