Direct Line Insurance plc v. Domain Drop S.A.
Claim Number: FA0705000992203
Complainant is Direct Line Insurance plc (“Complainant”), represented by James
A. Thomas, of Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein L.L.P.,
Post Office
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <directlinebusiness.com>, registered with Belgiumdomains, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 24, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 29, 2007.
On May 25, 2007, Belgiumdomains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <directlinebusiness.com> domain name is registered with Belgiumdomains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Belgiumdomains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Belgiumdomains, 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 May 31, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 20, 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@directlinebusiness.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 26, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <directlinebusiness.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIRECT LINE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <directlinebusiness.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <directlinebusiness.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Direct Line Insurance plc, was founded in 1984 as a personal finance company offering consumers loans, mortgages, insurance, and saving products. Complainant employs over 11,000 individuals worldwide managing assets for more than 10 million customers. Complainant owns trademark registrations for the DIRECT LINE mark with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) (Reg. No. 1,392,349 issued March 18, 1994) (formerly the United Kingdom Patent Office), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,518,906 issued Dec. 18, 2001), and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 1,617,794 issued August 4, 2006).
Respondent registered the <directlinebusiness.com> domain name on May 21, 2007. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website featuring links to commercial websites offering competing automotive and business insurance products.
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 DIRECT LINE mark through
registration of the mark with the UKIPO, USPTO, and OHIM. The Panel finds that Complainant’s trademark
rights through several trademark authorities sufficiently establish rights in
the DIRECT LINE mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Royal Bank of Scot.
Group plc v. Demand Domains, FA
714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (holding that
registration of the PRIVILEGE mark with the
Respondent’s <directlinebusiness.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIRECT LINE mark. Respondent’s domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “business.” The addition of the generic term “business” to an otherwise identical mark does not adequately distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark. Neither does the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” make any difference with respect to the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds the <directlinebusiness.com> domain name to be confusingly similar pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Vorot, FA 159547 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 16, 2003) (finding that the addition of the generic term “business” is insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <yahoobusiness.com> domain name from the complainant’s well-known YAHOO! mark); see also AT&T Corp. v. Caimmi Rappresentanze & Mktg. Italia, D2001-0541 (WIPO June 14, 2001) (“The domain names <attbusiness.com> and <attbusiness.org> are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trade marks and service marks.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant
asserts that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <directlinebusiness.com> domain
name. Complainant’s assertion constitutes a prima facie case for
purposes of the Policy shifting the burden to Respondent to demonstrate that it
does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel views
Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as evidence that Respondent lacks
rights or legitimate interests. Nonetheless, the Panel will evaluate the
available evidence to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate
interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). 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 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.”).
Respondent is using the <directlinebusiness.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to its website featuring links to commercial third-party websites offering financial services in direct competition with Complainant. Presumably, Respondent is receiving pay-per-click referral fees whenever Internet users click on the links hosted on Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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); see also 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24HourNames.com-Quality Domains For Sale, FA 187429 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 26, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of the <24hrsfitness.com>, <24-hourfitness.com> and <24hoursfitness.com> domain names to redirect Internet users to a website featuring advertisements and links to Complainant’s competitors could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
There is no available evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the <directlinebusiness.com> domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Domain Drop S.A.,” a name with no obvious relationship to the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name as contemplated by 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 Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s <directlinebusiness.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIRECT LINE mark. This confusing similarity may attract Internet users to Respondent’s website. Internet users at Respondent’s website may find themselves mistakenly believing that Complainant is affiliated with or sponsoring Respondent’s website. Respondent is capitalizing on this confusion as it is presumably collecting pay-per-click referral fees from the linked websites hosted on its website. The Panel finds that such use is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Warren, FA 204147 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (“Although Complainant’s principal website is <century21.com>, many Internet users are likely to use search engines to find Complainant’s website, only to be mislead to Respondent’s website at the <century21realty.biz> domain name, which features links for competing real estate websites. Therefore, it is likely that Internet users seeking Complainant’s website, but who end up at Respondent’s website, will be confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website.”).
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 <directlinebusiness.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: July 6, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum