America Online, Inc. v. Alexander Boris Boch d/b/a Niche Profit LTD.

Claim Number:  FA0311000209902



Complainant is America Online, Inc., Dulles, VA (“Complainant”) represented by James R. Davis, II, of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington DC 20036.  Respondent is Alexander Boris Boch d/b/a Niche Profit LTD., Bl. 16, Entrée A, Ap. 2, Smolian, BG 4700 Bulgaria (“Respondent”).



The domain names at issue are <> and <>, registered with Stargate.Com, 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.


Louis E. Condon as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on November 10, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 10, 2003.


On November 12, 2003, Stargate.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <> and <> are registered with Stargate.Com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Stargate.Com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Stargate.Com, 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 13, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 3, 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 and by e-mail.


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


On December 12, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Louis E. Condon as Panelist.


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."  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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:


1.      Respondent’s <> and <> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL and AOL.COM marks.


2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <> and <> domain names.


3.      Respondent registered and used the <> and <> domain names in bad faith.


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



Complainant successfully registered its AOL mark on June 4, 1996 and July 2, 1996 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. Nos. 1977731 and 1984337).  Complainant began using the AOL mark in commerce as early as 1989.


Complainant successfully registered its AOL.COM mark on June 4, 1996 and March 7, 2000 with the USPTO (Reg. Nos. 2325291 and 2325292).  Complainant began using the AOL.COM mark in commerce as early as 1992.


Complainant uses its marks in connection with computer online services and other Internet-related services.  The AOL mark is used and promoted worldwide for a range of services provided on the Internet.  Complainant has devoted substantial sums of money to the development of its AOL marks.  As a result, Complainant’s marks are famous and readily recognized on the Internet worldwide.


Respondent registered <> on May 10, 2002, and <> on December 12, 2002.  Respondent uses <> in connection with pornographic material provided on <>, which is also registered to Respondent.  Respondent also has previously been found to have violated the Policy, in reference to the <> domain name.  See eg. MRA Holding, LLC v. Boch d/b/a Niche Profit LTD, FA 140623 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2003).



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


Complainant has demonstrated rights in its AOL marks through registration with the USPTO and continuous use in commerce since 1989.  See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.  Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. MacLeod, D2000-0662 (WIPO Sept. 19, 2000) (finding that the failure of Complainant to register all possible domain names that surround its substantive mark does not hinder Complainant’s rights in the mark. “Trademark owners are not required to create ‘libraries’ of domain names in order to protect themselves”).


Both disputed domain names include Complainant’s AOL mark in its entirety.  The only differences between Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s names include the addition of a letter and hyphen on the one hand, and the addition of a generic word and hyphen on the other.  See Chernow Commun. Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (“the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"); see also Teleplace, Inc. v. De Oliveira, FA 95835 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the domain names <>, <>, and <> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEPLACE trademark); see also Nintendo Of Am. Inc. v. This Domain Is For Sale, D2000-1197 (WIPO Nov. 1, 2000) (finding <> identical and confusingly similar Complainant’s GAME BOY mark, even though the domain name is a combination of two descriptive words divided by a hyphen); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); 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 Complainant’s mark); see also Westfield Corp., Inc. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <> domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element).    


Therefore, Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).


Rights or Legitimate Interests


Respondent has not asserted any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.  Therefore, the Panel may accept all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant, without the benefit of a Response.  See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint); see also Vert. Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. Webnet-marketing, Inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also 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).


Additionally, there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  The WHOIS registration information fails to imply that Respondent is commonly known by the names.  See Tercent Inc. v. 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 Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).


As for both disputed domain names, it is difficult to infer a legitimate use by anyone other than Complainant because the AOL mark is so distinct in the mind of the public.  See Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark).


Furthermore, Respondent uses <> in connection with pornographic material, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).  See McClatchy Mgmt. Serv., Inc. v. Carrington a/k/a Party Night Inc., FA 155902 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2003) (holding that 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); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. Quicknet, D2003-0215 (WIPO May 26, 2003) (stating, the “use of the disputed domain name in connection with pornographic images and links tarnishes and dilutes [Complainant’s mark]” was evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Paws, Inc. v. Zuccarini a/k/a Country Walk, FA 125368 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2002) (holding that the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to an established mark to divert Internet users to an adult-oriented website “tarnishes Complainant’s mark and does not evidence noncommercial or fair use of the domain name by a respondent”).


Therefore, Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).


Registration and Use in Bad Faith


Respondent should have reasonably been aware of Complainant’s AOL marks given the worldwide prominence thereof.  Registration of a domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of another’s rights therein, evidences bad faith registration and use.  See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”); 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); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith).


Respondent has used the domain name <> in connection with pornographic material that tarnishes the AOL mark and thus, is evidence of bad faith.  See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Party Night Inc. and Peter Carrington, FA 144647 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s tarnishing use of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to adult-oriented websites was evidence that the domain names were being used in bad faith); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Horner, D2002-0029 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2002) (holding that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark to post pornographic photographs and to publicize hyperlinks to additional pornographic websites evidenced bad faith use and registration of the domain name); see also Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO March 4, 2003) (stating, “whatever the motivation of Respondent, the diversion of the domain name to a pornographic site is itself certainly consistent with the finding that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith”).


Therefore, Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).



Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> and <> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.







                                                         Louis E. Condon, Panelist

Dated:  December 22, 2003












Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page