Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Broadcom
Corporation v. BraodComm Integrations
Claim Number:
FA0210000128699
PARTIES
Complainant is
Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Gary J. Nelson, of Christie Parker & Hale LLP.
Respondent is BraodComm Integrations,
Petaling Jaya Selangor, MALAYSIA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <broad-comm.net>, registered with OnlineNIC.com, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that she has acted
independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known
conflict
in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra Franklin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National
Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on October 24, 2002; the Forum
received
a hard copy of the Complaint on October 24, 2002.
On October 24, 2002, OnlineNIC.com, Inc. confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <broad-comm.net>
is registered with OnlineNIC.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. OnlineNIC.com,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC.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 28, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and
Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline of November 18, 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@broad-comm.net 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 10, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s
request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum
appointed
Sandra Franklin 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 <broad-comm.net> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant's BROADCOM 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 did not submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant holds
numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office for BROADCOM including Registration
Numbers 2,132,930 and
2,392,925. Complainant uses its
BROADCOM mark in relation to computer hardware and software for broadcast
satellite systems, computer hardware
for integrated circuits and software for
controlling and using integrated circuits, communications hardware and computer
networks. Complainant has used its
BROADCOM mark since 1994. Complainant
also holds two trademark registrations in Malaysia, Respondent’s place of
domicile, for its BROADCOM mark.
Complainant is
the leading provider of integrated circuits, as well as computer hardware and
software in the field of broadband communications. Complainant provides its products to the most significant
broadband communications markets, including the markets for cable set-top
boxes, cable modems, high-speed local, metropolitan and wide area networks,
home networking, direct broadcast satellite, and digital
subscriber lines.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name on August 7, 2002. Respondent has made no
use of the disputed domain name other than
to park it at a website consisting
of the Registrar’s standard page for unused domain names and a generic
advertisement for available
domain name registrations.
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
Complainant has
established through continuous use and registration with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office that it has
rights in the BROADCOM mark.
Respondent’s <broad-comm.net> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark because it merely divides
Complainant’s mark in two with the
addition of a hyphen, and adds an extra “m”
at the end. The addition of a hyphen
does not create a distinct mark because not only is the mark still visually similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark,
but it is phonetically similar. See InfoSpace.com v. Tenenbaum Ofer,
D2000-0075 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (finding that “[t]he domain name
‘info-space.com’ is identical to Complainant’s INFOSPACE trademark.
The
addition of a hyphen and .com are not distinguishing features”); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Cupcake City, FA 93562 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr.
7, 2000) (finding that a domain name which is phonetically identical to
Complainant’s mark satisfies
¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
The addition of an
extra “m” fails to alleviate any of the confusing features of the domain name
because the domain name is still
phonetically and visually similar to
Complainant’s mark. Therefore,
Respondent’s domain name has no features capable of overcoming a claim of confusing
similarity. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July
13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a
trademark has a greater tendency
to be confusingly similar to the trademark
where the trademark is highly distinctive); see
also 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 the domain
name confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or
Legitimate Interests
When Complainant
asserts a prima facie case against
Respondent, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights
or legitimate interests pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Respondent has failed to Respond, therefore
it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain
name. See 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); see also 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).
Furthermore,
because Respondent has not submitted a Response, it is appropriate for the
Panel to accept all reasonable allegations
and inferences in the Complaint as
true. See 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); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000)
(finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from
Respondent’s failure to reply
to the Complaint).
Based on the fame of Complainant’s
BROADCOM mark, any use by Respondent of <broad-comm.net> will result in Internet user confusion. Respondent has not come forward with any
evidence that it is using, or plans to use, the disputed domain name for any
purpose, therefore,
it may be inferred that it registered the disputed domain
name in order to sell the registration rights.
Failure to use a domain name for any other purpose than to sell its
registration rights is not considered to be a use 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 J.
Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one
has made no use of the websites
that are located at the domain names at issue,
other than to sell the domain name registrations for profit); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000)
(finding Respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it
has no legitimate use);
see also Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273
(WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where
Respondent failed to submit a Response to the Complaint
and had made no use of
the domain name in question).
Respondent has not come forward with
a Response, and as a result there is no evidence on record to establish that it
is commonly known
as BROAD-COMM or <broad-comm.net>. Respondent does not use the name in relation
to the disputed domain name because it has not developed a website at the
domain name. In light of this lack of
evidence, and the fame of Complainant’s mark, the Panel finds that Respondent
has not established that it
has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See 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); see also Valigene Corp. v.
MIC, FA 94860 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding no rights or
legitimate interest in the non-use of a domain name that was a misspelling
of a
famous mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and
Use in Bad Faith
Because the
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known BROADCOM mark,
and Respondent has parked the domain name
at its registrar’s website
advertising the sale of domain name registrations, it can be inferred that
Respondent registered the domain
name with the intent to sell, rent or transfer
the domain name registration. The
registration of a domain name with the intent to sell its registration is
considered to be evidence of bad faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(i). See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept.
6, 2000) (finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad
faith if the domain name
owner’s conduct creates the impression that the name
is for sale); see also Educ. Testing Serv. v. TOEFL, D2000-0044
(WIPO Mar. 16, 2000) (finding that a general offer of sale combined with no
legitimate use of the domain name constitutes
registration and use in bad
faith).
Furthermore,
based on the fame of Complainant’s BROADCOM mark, as well as its trademark
registrations in Malaysia, it can be inferred
that Respondent had knowledge of
Complainant’s mark when it registered the infringing domain name. Registration of a domain name, confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark, despite actual or constructive knowledge of that
mark is
evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding
that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably
should
have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or
constructively”); see also 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").
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 <broad-comm.net>
be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December
18, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1696.html