Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
PRIMEDIA Specialty Group, Inc. v. Lorna
Kang
Claim Number: FA0208000118185
PARTIES
Complainant
is PRIMEDIA Specialty Group, Inc.,
New York, NY, USA (“Complainant”).
Respondent is Lorna Kang,
Telok Intan Perka, MALAYSIA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <dirtridermagazine.com>,
registered with Dotregistrar.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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on August 13, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint
on August 14, 2002.
On
August 14, 2002, Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <dirtridermagazine.com>
is registered with Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Dotregistrar.com
has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotregistrar.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
August 14, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of September
3, 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@dirtridermagazine.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
September 20, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr.,
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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
The
<dirtridermagazine.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant's DIRT RIDER mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and used the
disputed domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant uses the DIRT RIDER mark in
relation to periodicals related to off-road bicycle and motorsports
activities. Complainant submitted a trademark
application on October 31, 2001 (App. No. 76/331845) with the United States
Patent and Trademark
Office.
Complainant’s magazine currently has an active subscription of 146,000,
with additional newsstand sales of over 43,000. It is currently one of the world’s largest off-road magazines and
it has become one of the most recognized brands in the motocross
and off-road
bike market. Complainant operates a
companion website to the DIRT RIDER publication at <dirtrider.com>. The website is used to promote Complainant’s
products and services. Complainant’s
website receives several thousand visitors a month.
Respondent registered the <dirtridermagazine.com>
domain name in November of 2001.
Respondent does not have permission to use the DIRT RIDER mark. Respondent’s website diverts Internet users
to a pornographic website called “Hollywood Whores,” which purports to provide
nude and
pornographic pictures of celebrities.
When a user attempts to close out of Respondent’s website a series of
additional pornographic web page pop-ups and browsers are launched,
forcing the
Internet user to close as many as five additional web pages.
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 that it has
common law rights in the DIRT RIDER mark through its continuous use of the mark
in relation
to the Dirt Rider publication. 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.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair
Competition, § 25:74.2, Vol. 4 (2000); see also British Broad.
Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (noting that the Policy
“does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and
service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and
applying the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service
marks”).
Respondent’s <dirtridermagazine.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it
incorporates Complainant’s entire DIRT RIDER mark and merely
adds the descriptive
term “magazine” to the end. The
addition of a term that describes Complainant to the end of Complainant’s mark
does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming
a claim of confusing
similarity. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing
similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with
a
generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business); see
also Marriott Int’l v. Café au
lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s
domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s
MARRIOTT mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has failed to come forward
with a Response. Therefore, the Panel
is permitted to make reasonable inferences in favor of Complainant and to
accept Complainant’s allegations as
true.
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”);
see also
Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v.
webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure
to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of
Complainant
to be deemed true).
Furthermore, based on Respondent’s
failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the
disputed domain name. See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp.,
D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which
could demonstrate any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326
(WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interest in the domain name because Respondent
never submitted a Response nor
provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise).
Respondent is using the disputed domain
name for a pornographic website.
Internet users looking for information about Complainant are led instead
to a website entitled “Hollywood Whores,” then when they
attempt to exit users
are bombarded with even more pornographic pop-ups. This type of use by Respondent is not considered to be in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy
¶
4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Nat’l Football League Prop., Inc. v. One
Sex Entm’t Co., D2000-0118 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that Respondent
had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names
<chargergirls.com>
and <chargergirls.net> where Respondent linked
these domain names to its pornographic website); see also MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11,
2000) (finding that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services to use
a domain name for commercial
gain by attracting Internet users to third party
sites offering sexually explicit and pornographic material where such use is calculated
to mislead consumers and to tarnish Complainant’s mark).
Respondent has not come forward with any
evidence to suggest that it is commonly known as <dirtridermagazine.com>
or DIRT RIDER MAGAZINE. Therefore, the
Panel has no proof that Respondent is commonly known by anything other than
“Lorna King.” As a result, Respondent
has failed to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name 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 Hartford
Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29,
2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain
names because
it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent
has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods
and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
It can be inferred that Respondent is
using Complainant’s mark in order to mislead Internet users and attract people
interested in
Complainant to Respondent’s pornographic website for Respondent’s
commercial gain. This type of behavior
is evidence of bad faith use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered the domain name
<bigtex.net> to infringe
on Complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet
users to Respondent’s website); 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); see also
Youtv, Inc. v. Alemdar, FA 94243
(Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attracted
users to his website for commercial gain
and linked his website to pornographic
websites).
Furthermore, Respondent’s use of a domain
name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark for a pornographic website
infringes on Complainant’s
goodwill and is therefore evidence of Respondent’s
bad faith use and registration. See Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370
(WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that absent contrary evidence, linking the domain
names in question to graphic, adult-oriented
websites is evidence of bad
faith); see also CCA Indus., Inc.
v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (finding that “this association
with a pornographic web site can itself constitute bad faith”);
see also
Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela,
FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (use of another's well-known mark to provide
a link to a pornographic site is evidence of
bad faith registration and use).
It can be inferred that Respondent had
knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the DIRT RIDER mark when it registered the
disputed domain
name, because Respondent registered the domain name in order to
attract Internet users to its pornographic website. Registration of a domain name infringing on Complainant’s mark,
despite knowledge of Complainant’s rights in that mark, is evidence
of bad
faith registration 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 Albrecht
v. Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) (finding registration
in bad faith based where there is no reasonable possibility, and
no evidence
from which to infer that the domain name was selected at random since it
entirely incorporated Complainant’s name).
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
shall be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <dirtridermagazine.com> be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr. , Panelist
Dated: October 4, 2002.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1406.html