Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is The Washington Post Company, Washington, DC, USA ("Complainant") represented by Douglas A. Rettew, of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner. Respondent is Eitan Zviely aka Names OZ, Los Angeles, CA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "washigtonpost.com" registered with Network Solutions.

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 14, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 20, 2001.

On February 21, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "washigtonpost.com" is 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 4.0 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 February 27, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 19, 2001 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@washigtonpost.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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On March 27, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member Panel, the Forum appointed Carolyn Marks Johnson 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 the Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, The Washington Post Company, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. Complainant is the owner of numerous marks comprised of or containing its THE WASHINGTON POST mark. Complainant is a diversified media organization whose principal operations include newspaper and magazine publishing, broadcasting, and cable television systems. In 1999, Complainant earned gross revenues of 2.2 billion dollars.

Complainant owns THE WASHINGTON POST newspaper, which was first published in 1877 and, over the last century, has become one of the most well-known and highly respected publications in the United States. In 1998, THE WASHINGTON POST estimated an average circulation for its newspaper of more than 783,000 daily and 1,095,000 Sunday. In addition, Complainant’s paper maintains 20 foreign, 5 national and 12 metropolitan news bureaus. Complainant also maintains a web site at washingtonpost.com.

Respondent, Eitan Zviely a.k.a. Names OZ, has a history of registering domain name variations of many famous marks and has been a co-defendant in at least two trademark infringement lawsuits and at least three UDRP actions involving domain names Respondent registered incorporating and/or misspelling the trademarks of others.

In this case, Respondent has never been a licensee of Complainant and is not authorized by Complainant to use its WASHINGTON POST marks. Currently, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to automatically redirect Internet users to Respondent’s web sites, which offer information and services in direct competition with those offered by Complainant.

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 the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) 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;

(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 established its rights to its registered marks, THE WASHINGTON POST and WASHINGTONPOST.COM

The Respondent’s domain name, washigtonpost.com, is, on its face, confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks despite the fact that Respondent removed one letter. The removal of the letter "n" does not change the overall impression of the domain name, which appears to reflect Complainant’s marks. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter "s" from the Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark does not change the overall impression of the mark and thus is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark).

In addition, Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because a reasonable Internet user would assume the domain name is somehow associated with Complainant’s famous marks. See Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s web site, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between Complainant and Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

The Panel finds that Complainant established that the disputed domain name is identical to and confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known marks. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)

Complainant has established rights to and legitimate interests in its well-known marks. The evidence before the Panel supports an inference that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to Respondent’s own web site. This is not a bona fide commercial use and does not establish rights to or interests in Complainant’s marks. See MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the famous MSNBC mark where Respondent attempted to profit using the Complainant’s mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own web site).

Also, it is clear as well that Respondent could not be commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Broadcom Corp. v Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.)

Moreover, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names and no use of the domain names was proved); see also Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc. and D3M Domain Sales, AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where no such right or interest is immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent has not come forward to suggest any such right or interest that it may possess).

Consequently, the Panel finds that Complainant established rights to and legitimate interests in the marks contained with in the disputed domain name and that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Complainant sufficiently demonstrated that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct by registering several infringing domain names. This is evidence of bad faith. See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that showing one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Associates, FA 95234 (Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that Respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names that infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks). Complainant has shown that Respondent has a history of registering domain names comprised of common misspellings of famous marks. This too is evidence of bad faith. See Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94381 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s registration of names of famous people, with slight typographical errors, is evidence of bad faith).

Further, it is clear that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users, strictly for Respondent’s commercial gain, to Respondent’s web site or other online location. Such use creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s well-established marks. This is evidence of bad faith. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attracted users to a web site sponsored by Respondent and created confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of that web site).

Finally, the popularity of Complainant’s famous mark permits the strong inference that Respondent knew of Complainant’s well-known mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. This is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. See Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that Respondent demonstrated bad faith where Respondent was aware of Complainant’s famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names).

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be and is hereby granted. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name, washigtonpost.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.