national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Don Best Sports v. SZK.com c/o Michele Dinoia

Claim Number:  FA0411000362036

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Don Best Sports (“Complainant”), 4875 Nevso Dr, Las Vegas, NV 89103.  Respondent is SZK.com c/o Michele Dinoia (“Respondent”), Via Trilussa 11, Pineto, TE 64025, ITALY.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <donbestsports.com>, registered with Onlinenic, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 8, 2004; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 9, 2004.

 

On November 8, 2004, Onlinenic, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <donbestsports.com> is registered with Onlinenic, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Onlinenic, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Onlinenic, 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 November 11, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 1, 2004 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@donbestsports.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On December 10, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <donbestsports.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s DON BEST SPORTS mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <donbestsports.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <donbestsports.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a company that provides information and analysis in the area of sports gambling.  Complainant runs a commercial computer service that displays real time odds, injuries, weather reports and other relevant information relating to sports events for gambling purposes.  Since its inception in 1990, Complainant has developed a reputation as the premier sports gambling information service.  Complainant has registered the <donbest.com> domain name, where Complainant operates a website providing Complainants’ commercial services to subscribers.

 

Since 1990, Complainant and Complainant’s predecessor in interest have conducted their sports information service under the DON BEST SPORTS mark.  Complainant has registered the DON BEST SPORTS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,682,398, issued February 4, 2003).

 

Respondent registered the <donbestsports.com> domain name on October 14, 2001.  Respondent’s domain name resolves to a search engine website that links to other websites relating to professional sports and sports teams.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Respondent’s registration of the <donbestsports.com> domain name predated Complainant’s registration of the DON BEST SPORTS mark with the USPTO.  However, registration of a mark with a governmental authority is unnecessary for a complainant to establish rights in a mark if a common law mark has been established. See McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2 (4th ed. 2002) (The ICANN dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice” to support a domain name Complaint under the Policy); see also Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (finding that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy does not require “that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist”).

 

Complainant has established rights in the DON BEST SPORTS mark through ownership of a common law mark. A common law mark is established when a Complainant’s goods or services become distinctive and acquire secondary meaning. Complainant established that through Complainant’s long-term, continued use of the mark since 1990, Complainant’s mark has acquired secondary meaning and has become distinctive of Complainant’s services. Thus, Complainant has established secondary meaning in the DON BEST SPORTS mark through its continued and exclusive use for the last fifteen years. 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) (“On account of long and substantial use of the said name [<keppelbank.com>] in connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the common law.”); see also BroadcastAmerica.com, Inc. v. Quo, DTV2000-0001 (WIPO Oct. 4, 2000) (finding that Complainant has common law rights in BROADCASTAMERICA.COM, given extensive use of that mark to identify Complainant as the source of broadcast services over the Internet, and evidence that there is wide recognition with the BROADCASTAMERICA.COM mark among Internet users as to the source of broadcast services).

 

Respondent’s <donbestsports.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s common law mark because it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely deviates with the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.” Incorporating Complainant’s mark in its entirety with the mere addition of a generic top-level domain renders a domain name identical to a Complainant’s mark with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v. Hodgson, D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name <gaygames.com> is identical to Complainant's registered trademark GAY GAMES); see also Victoria's Secret v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that the <bodybyvictoria.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BODY BY VICTORIA mark); see also Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint.  Therefore, the Panel accepts all reasonable allegations set forth in the Complaint as true.  See Am. Online, Inc. v. Clowers, FA 199821 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 14, 2003) (finding that the failure to challenge a complainant’s allegations allows a panel to accept all of the complainant’s reasonable allegations and inferences as true); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that the failure to respond to a complaint allows a panel to make reasonable inferences in favor of a complainant and accept the complainant’s allegations as true).

 

In addition, the Panel construes Respondent’s failure to respond as an admission that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Domain Deluxe, FA 269166 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2004) (“The failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint functions both as an implicit admission that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the domain names, as well as a presumption that Complainant’s reasonable allegations are true.”).

 

Furthermore, nothing in the record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Moreover, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to register or use domain names that incorporate Complainant’s mark.  Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

 

Respondent is not using the domain name <donbestsports.com> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy because Respondent is attempting to capitalize illegitimately on the fame associated with Complainant’s DON BEST SPORTS mark by attracting Internet users to its search engine through the use of a domain name identical to Complainant’s mark.  See Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc. v. Chan, FA 154119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2003) (finding that Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that used Complainant’s mark and redirected Internet users to a website that pays domain name registrants for referring those users to its search engine and pop-up advertisements); see also Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of infringing domain names to direct Internet traffic to a search engine website that hosted pop-up advertisements was evidence that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent is capitalizing on the goodwill of the DON BEST SPORTS mark by diverting Internet users to a search engine website.  Since the disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website.  Therefore, Respondent’s opportunistic use of the disputed domain name represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users seeking Complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).

 

Furthermore, Complainant alleges that Respondent acted in bad faith by registering and using a domain name containing Complainant’s mark.  Since the disputed domain name has no inherent connection to the use of a search engine website, such evidence supports the Panel’s inference that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to trade on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark.  Therefore, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, despite knowledge of Complainant’s interests in the DON BEST SPORTS mark, constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) ("[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse"); see also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <donbestsports.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)

 

Dated:  December 22, 2004

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page