Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
DECISION
Aetna, Inc. v. Dotsan a/k/a R.S. Potdar
Claim Number: FA0205000114457
PARTIES
Complainant is Aetna, Inc., Hartford, CT, USA (“Complainant”). Respondent is Dotsan a/k/a R.S. Potdar,
Mumbai, INDIA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <aetnaus.com>, <aetnaush.com>, <aetnaushe.com> and <aetnashc.com>, registered with BulkRegister.com.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on May 31, 2002; the
Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint on June 3, 2002.
On June 3, 2002, BulkRegister.com
confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <aetnaus.com>, <aetnaush.com>,
<aetnaushe.com> and <aetnashc.com> are registered
with BulkRegister.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the
names. BulkRegister.com has verified
that Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister.com 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 June 10, 2002, a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting
a deadline of July 1, 2002 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@aetnaus.com, postmaster@aetnaush.com, postmaster@aetnaushe.com and
postmaster@aetnashc.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 July 11, 2002, pursuant to
Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the
Forum appointed the
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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.
RELIEF
SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain
names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’
CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s
<aetnaus.com>, <aetnaush.com>, <aetnaushe.com> and <aetnashc.com> domain names are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered AETNA mark.
2. Respondent
does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
3. Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant owns numerous trademarks,
including U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 1,744,804, for
its AETNA mark
listed on the Principal Register on January 5, 1993. Complainant
first registered a service mark including the AETNA mark on October
30, 1923.
Since 1853, Complainant and its affiliates have continuously used the AETNA
name and mark in connection with a wide variety
of insurance, financial and
health care services. Complainant also owns trademark and service mark
registrations and applications
for its AETNA family of marks in thirty-five
countries, including India, Respondent’s domicile.
Complainant currently holds the domain
name registrations for the following domain names: <aetna.com>,
<aetna.us>, <aetnausch.com>,
<aetna.info>,
<aetnainidia.net> and <aetnaushc.com>, among others. Complainant’s
primary website, <aetna.com>,
receives on average 25.89 million “hits”
per month.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
names between September and October 2001. Respondent is currently using the
subject domain
names to redirect Internet traffic to <gito.com> and
<ownbox.com/treasure/search.html>, which are directory websites
that
provide links to other websites, including online gambling and websites
containing sexual content.
Complainant’s investigation of Respondent
revealed that Respondent does not hold any trademark rights in the AETNA mark.
Complainant
also asserts that Respondent is a known cybersquatter and
typosquatter with a history of registering domain names incorporating
well-known
names and trademarks of others, including variations of ORBITZ, TONY
ORLANDO and EXPEDIA, among others.
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 the
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 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; and
(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
Complainant has established rights in the
AETNA family of marks based on its international registration and continuous
use of the
AETNA mark in relation to providing insurance, financial and health
care services since 1853.
Respondent’s <aetnaus.com>, <aetnaush.com>,
<aetnaushe.com> and <aetnashc.com> domain names are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered AETNA mark. The addition of an
undecipherable combination of letters
fails to detract from the overall
impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely, the trademark
AETNA. Thus, Policy
¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied. See
Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000)
(finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent
does not
create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders it confusingly similar
to Complainant’s marks); see also Am.
Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that adding
the suffixes "502" and "520" to the ICQ trademark does
little to reduce the potential for confusion); see also Kelson Physician Partners, Inc. v. Mason, CPR003 (CPR
2000) (finding that <kelsonmd.com> is identical or confusingly similar to
Complainant’s federally registered service
mark, “Kelson”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent did not submit a Response in
this proceeding. Therefore, it is presumed that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests
in the disputed domain
names. See Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc., AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests where no such right or interest was
immediately
apparent to the Panel and Respondent did not come forward to
suggest any right or interest it may have possessed).
Furthermore, because Respondent failed to
submit a Response in this proceeding, the Panel is permitted to make all reasonable
inferences
in favor of Complainant. See
Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson,
D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is
appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint”).
Complainant’s investigation has revealed
that Respondent’s primary purpose in registering the disputed domain names was
to divert
Internet traffic to its unrelated websites, located at
<gito.com> and <ownbox.com/treasure/search.html>. Respondent’s
opportunistic attempt to benefit from the goodwill associated with
Complainant’s AETNA family of marks by diverting Internet users
to websites
that tarnish Complainant’s reputation is not related to a bona fide offering of
goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i),
nor is it a legitimate noncommercial
use of the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass.
2002) (finding that, because the Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the
domain names was to cause confusion with
the Complainant's website and marks,
it's use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or
services or any other
fair use); see also
AltaVista v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding that use of
the domain name to direct users to other, unconnected websites does not
constitute
a legitimate interest in the domain name); see also Société des Bains de Mer v. Int’l Lotteries, D2000-1326
(WIPO Jan. 8, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent
used the <casinomontecarlo.com>
and <montecarlocasinos.com> domain
names in connection with an online gambling website).
There is no evidence that suggests
Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names, or a corresponding
moniker. The fame
and recognition associated with Complainant’s established
AETNA mark creates a presumption that Respondent does not have any rights
or
legitimate interests in the AETNA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v.
Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and
never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the
trademarked name); see also CBS Broad.,
Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that
Respondent failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the
<twilight-zone.net>
domain name since Complainant had been using the
TWILIGHT ZONE mark since 1959).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant and its affiliates have been
continually using the AETNA mark to identify Complainant’s insurance and
financial services.
Furthermore, Complainant owns trademark registrations in
thirty-five countries, including Respondent’s domicile, India. Because of
Complainant’s extensive development of its AETNA mark, it has become distinct
and famous. Due to the mark’s fame and Complainant’s
registration of the AETNA
mark in India, Respondent had notice of Complainant’s rights when registering
the disputed domain names.
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed
domain names, despite knowledge of Complainant’s preexisting rights, evidences
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002)
(finding that "[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); 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’s registration of
infringing domain names with the intention of directing Internet users to
unconnected third-party websites
constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users who
are searching
for Complainant’s products to its own websites by creating
confusion as to the source of the domain names. Furthermore, Respondent
offers
services, such as gambling and websites containing sexual content, which could
tarnish Complainant’s AETNA mark. Respondent’s
registration of numerous domain
names that incorporate Complainant’s famous AETNA mark represents a classic example
of typosquatting.
See Encyclopedia
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 a gambling site); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered and
used an infringing domain name to attract
users to a website sponsored by
Respondent); see also L.L. Bean, Inc. v.
Cupcake Patrol, FA 96504 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 12, 2001) (finding that
Respondent acted in bad faith by establishing a pattern of registering
misspellings
of famous trademarks and names).
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 the
requested relief should be hereby
GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered
that the <aetnaus.com>, <aetnaush.com>, <aetnaushe.com> and <aetnashc.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to
Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K.
McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 25, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1272.html