Mattel, Inc. v. Martin Lutgers
Claim Number: FA0705000991076
Complainant is Mattel, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Megan
L. Martin, of Perkins & Dunnegan, 45
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <barbiesnaked.com>, registered with Estdomains, 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 May 22, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 22, 2007.
On June 6, 2007, Estdomains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <barbiesnaked.com> domain name is registered with Estdomains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Estdomains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Estdomains, 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 June 6, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 26, 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@barbiesnaked.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 2, 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 <barbiesnaked.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BARBIE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <barbiesnaked.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <barbiesnaked.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Mattel, Inc., is a worldwide manufacturer of consumer products, most notably toys, dolls, and games. Complainant has sold dolls and other related goods under the well-known BARBIE mark since 1959. Complainant holds several trademark registrations of the BARBIE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 728,811 issued March 20, 1962).
Respondent registered the <barbiesnaked.com> domain name on March 10, 2006. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a commercial adult-oriented website.
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’s registration of the BARBIE mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes its rights in the 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 Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
Respondent’s <barbiesnaked.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BARBIE mark, as it simply adds the letter “s” and the common term “naked” onto the mark. Moreover, the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” to the mark does not negate the confusing similarity, as a top-level domain is a required element of all domain names. Thus, the Panel finds that the <barbiesnaked.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BARBIE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also 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 rendered confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . . ."); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant has the initial burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <barbiesnaked.com> domain name. However, once Complainant establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the instant case, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to the Policy. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises the presumption that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <barbiesnaked.com> domain name. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”). Nevertheless, the Panel will now examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent’s WHOIS information does not indicate, and there is nothing further in the record to suggest, that Respondent is commonly known by the <barbiesnaked.com> domain name. Moreover, Respondent is not licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its BARBIE mark in any way. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); 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 <barbiesnaked.com> domain name resolves to a website containing adult-oriented content. The Panel presumes that Respondent is benefiting commercially from this website. Such use does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Target Brands, Inc. v. Bealo Group S.A., FA 128684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 17, 2002) (finding that use of the <targetstore.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to a pornographic website did not equate to a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also McClatchy Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Carrington, FA 155902 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to a website that features pornographic material, had been “consistently held” to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services . . . nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the <barbiesnaked.com>
domain name to redirect Internet users to an adult-oriented website,
presumably for commercial gain.
Respondent is therefore capitalizing on the likelihood that users will
confuse the disputed domain name as being affiliated with Complainant and its
BARBIE mark. This indicates that
Respondent registered and is using the <barbiesnaked.com>
domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
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 <barbiesnaked.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Crary, Panelist
Dated: July 11, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum