WorldLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

You are here:  WorldLII >> Databases >> Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions >> 2000 >> [2000] GENDND 1631

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

National Rifle Association v. fredg.com [2000] GENDND 1631 (30 November 2000)


National Arbitration Forum

DECISION

National Rifle Association v. fredg.com

Claim Number: FA0010000095837

PARTIES

The Complainant is National Rifle Association, USA ("Complainant") represented by Jeffrey H. Greger, Esq., Mason, Mason & Albright. The Respondent is fredg.com, Phoenix, AZ, USA ("Respondent").

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are "friendsofnra.com", "friendsofnra.net", and "friendsofnra.org", registered with Network Solutions.

PANELIST

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 the panelist in this proceeding.

John J. Upchurch is serving as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on October 18, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 16, 2000.

On October 20, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain names "friendsofnra.com", "friendsofnra.net", and "friendsofnra.org" are registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On October 26, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 14, 2000 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@friendsofnra.com, postmaster@friendsofnra.net, and postmaster@friendsofnra.org by e-mail.

On November 20, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

    1. Complainant
    2. Respondent, who had agreed to certain restrictions in the use of Complainant’s trademarks as a committee member and volunteer, reserved, without authorization, three domain names using the identical "friendsofnra" second-level domain name identifier. Respondent commenced use of all three disputed domain names under the guise of an approved sponsorship or association with the NRA.

    3. Respondent

He has been a part of "Friends of NRA", a volunteer fundraising organization, for over 9 years. The official NRA Foundation website (nrafoundation.org) has no function for individual committees to promote their wares and events. Respondent’s sites fulfill that need.

FINDINGS

    1. The domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark in which it has established, at the least, common law trademark or service mark rights.
    2. Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
    3. The domain names were registered in bad faith.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
    2. the 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 domain names are identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark. See Symplicity Corp. v. Bob Gately, D2000-0425 (WIPO July 12, 2000) (finding that the domain name at issue, <simplicity.com> is identical to the mark, SYMPLICITY, in which the Complainant has common law rights acquired through use and for which Complainant has applied for registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office); State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding that the ".com" is part of the Internet address and does not add source identity significance").

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends that the Respondent as no rights and legitimate interests in the domain names in question. I agree. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Douglas LaFaive, FA 95407 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2000) (finding that "unauthorized providing of information and services under a mark owned by a third party cannot be said to be the bona fide offering of goods or services").

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent has registered and used the domain names in bad faith. Attracting Internet users to a website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website is evidence of bad faith. See Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. Shedon.com. D2000-0753 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that the Respondent violated Policy ¶4.b.(iv) by using the domain name <britannnica.com> to hyperlink to Respondent’s site).

See also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Kyle Northway, FA 95464 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 11, 2000) (finding that the Respondent registered the domain name <statefarmnews.com> in bad faith because Respondent intends to use Complainant’s marks to attract the public to a web site without permission from Complainant).

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent registered the domain names in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its marks in corresponding domain names. Policy ¶4.b.(ii). To establish this circumstance, there must be evidence of a pattern of conduct. Registering the ".com", ".net", and ".org" versions of the domain name is a pattern of conduct. See Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, D2000-0010 (WIPO Mar. 7, 2000) (finding that the fact that the Respondent registered two domain names infringing on the Complainant’s marks is suggestive of bad faith.

DECISION

The domain names "friendsofnra.com", "friendsofnra.net" and "friendsofnra.org" shall be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

Honorable John J. Upchurch

Retired Judge

Arbitrator

Dated: November 30, 2000


WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2000/1631.html