Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
H-D Michigan, Inc. v. CostNet a/k/a
Domain Manager
Claim Number: FA0210000128681
PARTIES
Complainant
is H-D Michigan, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
(“Complainant”) represented by Robert S.
Gurwin, of Rader Fishman &
Grauer PLLC. Respondent is CostNet a/k/a Domain Manager,
San Jose, CA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <4-harley-babes.com>,
registered with Register.com, Inc.
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.
James
A. Crary as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on October 22, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on October 22, 2002.
On
October 22, 2002, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <4-harley-babes.com>
is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. has verified
that Respondent is
bound by the Register.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
October 24, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of November 13, 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@4-harley-babes.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
December 5, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James
A. Crary 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 makes the following
assertions:
Respondent’s
<4-harley-babes.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s registered HARLEY mark.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate
interests in the <4-harley-babes.com> domain
name.
Respondent registered and used the <4-harley-babes.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant,
H-D Michigan, Inc., holds rights in the HARLEY and HARLEY-DAVIDSON registered
marks (e.g. U.S. Reg. No. 522,500). Complainant registered this mark on
March 21, 1950 on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and has used it in commerce since 1923. Complainant
holds many additional registrations for variations
of its HARLEY and
HARLEY-DAVIDSON family of marks.
Complainant uses its registered
HARLEY-DAVIDSON family of marks to distinguish its motorcycles, motorcycle
parts and accessories,
clothing catalogs and collectibles, as well as to
distribute its wide variety of advertising and promotional materials.
Complainant
has registered its HARLEY-DAVIDSON trademark over 590 times in over
75 countries worldwide, and holds an additional 365 trademark
registrations for
logos incorporating variations of its HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark. Complainant
registered its <harley-davidson.com>
domain name on November 8, 1994, and
has used it since June of 1996 as a worldwide information and distribution
channel for it business,
receiving over 23 million page views in August of
2002. Complainant holds over 600 other domain name registrations, 83 of which
incorporate
its HARLEY-DAVIDSON registered mark.
Respondent, CostNet a/k/a Domain Manager,
registered the <4-harley-babes.com>
domain name on December 18,
2000. Respondent is not licensed or
otherwise authorized to make use of the HARLEY family of marks for any purpose.
By March 4, 2001, Respondent’s website at
<4-harley-babes.com> redirected Internet users to various
pornographic websites, some including photographes of scantily clad women on
motorcycles (e.g. the <babesindex.com> domain name, which presents
explicit language as well as pictures of women in various states of undress).
Numerous pop-up advertisements are generated during the redirect,
advertisements that also involve pornographic content.
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 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
Complaint has established rights in its
HARLEY family of marks through registration on the Principal Register of the
USPTO along with
its widespread and continuous use of its marks in commerce and
advertising.
Respondent’s <4-harley-babes.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s HARLEY mark. The only difference between Respondent’s domain name
and the registered
mark of Complainant is the addition of the top-level domain
“.com” and the addition of the numeral “4” before, and the word “babes”
after,
Complainant’s registered mark. As top-level domains are a required feature for
each domain name, the “.com” in the disputed
domain name does not prevent a
finding of confusing similarity. See Busy
Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding
that "the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is .
. . without
legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name
registrants"); see also Visit
Am., Inc. v. Visit Am., FA 95093 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2000) (finding
that the “.com” is part of the Internet address and does not add source
identity
significance).
The addition of the numeral “4” and the
word “babes” to Complainant’s registered HARLEY mark also fails to sufficiently
differentiate
the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. The dominant
feature of the disputed domain name remains Complainant’s HARLEY mark,
while
the numeral “4” and word “babes” do not dispel any confusing similarity between
the disputed domain name and Complainant’s
mark. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Papol
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 Arthur
Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v.
Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026
(WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in
dispute contains the identical mark of the
Complainant combined with a generic
word or term).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <4-harley-babes.com> domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered HARLEY family of marks under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
If a complainant presents a prima
facie case against a respondent in the complaint, the burden of proving
rights and legitimate interests in a disputed domain name shifts
to the
respondent. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Oct. 1, 2002) (holding where a Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests
in respect of 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 Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624
(WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in
respect of the domain, the burden shifts
to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of
rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name).
Once that
burden has shifted to Respondent, failure to submit a Response is tantamount to
admitting no rights or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the Panel will construe a lack of Response as evidence in and of
itself that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. See
Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000)
(finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by Complainant
that Respondent has
no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the
burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate
interest does exist); 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). In the present
dispute, Respondent submitted no Response rebutting the allegations set
forth
in the Complaint, and the Panel will accept all of Complainant’s reasonable
assertions 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).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is
not using the <4-harley-babes.com>
domain name in connection with any
bona fide offerings of goods or services, nor is it making a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use
of the domain name, both examples of evidence of rights
and legitamite interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). The Panel agrees
with Complainant’s assessment. Respondent uses the disputed domain name, which
contains Complainant’s registered mark in its entirety,
to redirect Internet
users to pornographic websites. This type of activity does not equate with a
“bona fide offering of goods and
services” under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), as
Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark to attract Internet users tarnishes the
goodwill surrounding
that mark. See Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar.
5, 2001) (finding that infringing on another's well-known mark to provide a
link to a pornographic
site is not a legitimate or fair use); 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 the Complainant’s mark).
Complainant’s uncontested allegations
assert that Respondent’s use of pop-up advertisements and its redirection of
the disputed domain
name to pornographic websites is calculated to earn a
profit from each diverted Internet user. This type of activity is not a
legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See 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 Big
Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding
no legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by
using Complainant’s trademarks).
Complainant has not authorized Respondent
to use its HARLEY family of marks and Respondent’s contact information implies
that it is
not “commonly known by” the name 4-HARLEY-BABES or <4-harley-babes.com>. In light of Respondent’s failure to
offer any evidence that it has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain
name, the Panel
concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc.
v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known
by the
domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see
also Nokia Corp. v. Private,
D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding that Respondent is not commonly known
by the mark contained in the domain name where Complainant
has not permitted
Respondent to use the NOKIA mark and no other facts or elements can justify
prior rights or a legitimate connection
to the names “Nokia” and/or
“wwwNokia”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <4-harley-babes.com> domain name
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Registering and using an infringing
domain name to “intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users…by creating
a likelihood of confusion…as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of…a product of service on your website,”
exemplifies
bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). In the present dispute,
Respondent’s <4-harley-babes.com> domain name violates this provision of the
Policy. By registering a domain name that infringes on Complainant’s mark, and
using that
domain name to gain commercial profit via pop-up advertisements and
redirection of Internet users to pornographic websites, Respondent
both
registered and used its domain name in 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 the Complainant’s
well-known marks, thus
creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); 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); see also 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).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that
Respondent registered and used the <4-harley-babes.com>
domain name in bad faith, and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <4-harley-babes.com> domain name
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Crary, Panelist
Dated: December 16, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1678.html