Radio City Trademarks, LLC v. Robert Baker
Claim Number: FA2110001969946
Complainant is Radio City Trademarks, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Brandon Ress of King & Spalding LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Robert Baker (“Respondent”), Kansas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <rockettesnewyork.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 20, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 20, 2021.
On October 22, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <rockettesnewyork.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 25, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 15, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@rockettesnewyork.com. Also on October 25, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 23, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
On November 23, 2021 the Panel issued an order seeking further evidence on the use of the Domain Name from Complainant and providing Respondent with an opportunity to comment on any further evidence filed. On November 26, 2021 Complainant filed Additional Submissions in response to the Panel Order. Respondent did not file any material by the deadline set out in the Panel Order.
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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Radio City Trademarks LLC, holds and licenses the ROCKETTES trademark to related entities in connection with entertainment services. Complainant has rights in the ROCKETTES mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,809,895, registered Sept. 8, 2015). Respondent’s <rockettesnewyork.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROCKETTES mark since it incorporates the entire mark, merely adding the geographic term “New York” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <rockettesnewyork.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not licensed to use Complainant’s ROCKETTES mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent previously hosted click-through links at the Domain Name and now inactively holds the Domain Name.
Respondent registered and uses the <rockettesnewyork.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business for commercial gain by displaying competing third-party hyperlinks though which it is likely to receive revenue. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ROCKETTES mark when it registered the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant, in response to the Panel Order of November 23, 2021, submitted a Declaration of Debra Duguid, which contained, as an annexure, a screenshot of the website accessible at the Domain Name taken around September 24, 2021 indicating that the Domain Name was used to display pay-per-click advertisements for the sale of tickets to shows displaying the Rockettes and Broadway shows more generally.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the ROCKETTES mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROCKETTES mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.
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."
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.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant asserts rights in the ROCKETTES mark (e.g., Reg. No. 4,809,895, registered Sept. 8, 2015) based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The Panel finds that the <rockettesnewyork.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROCKETTES mark at it wholly reproduces the ROCKETTES mark and adds the geographic term “new york” and the “.com” gTLD. Such changes do not distinguish a domain from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the addition of geograhic terms, such as “cancun” to the end of the CHEAPTICKETS mark in the <cheapticketscancun.com>, <cheapticketscancun.biz>, <cheapticketscancun.net>, and <cheapticketscancun.org> domain names, does not overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the ROCKETTES mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Robert Baker” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name is presently inactive but Complainant provides evidence that prior to the commencement of the proceedings the Domain Name resolved to a page that offered a series of hyperlinks (for which the Respondent was likely to receive revenue) directly referring to Complainant’s entertainment services. This is not a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, September 14, 2021, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s ROCKETTES mark as it would be unlikely for a party to register a domain name containing the ROCKETTES mark and the geographical location associated with the Complainant and use it for a series of affiliate links to companies selling Broadway entertainment services in competition with Complainant absent any awareness of Complainant and its ROCKETTES mark (and intention to capitalize on Complainant’s reputation in its ROCKETTES mark). In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s ROCKETTES mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website containing advertisements and links to competitor and other third party websites for commercial gain. Use of an identical or confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA1408001575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rockettesnewyork.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: December 3, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page