DECISION

Front Range Community College et. al. v. dannyBOY inc.

Claim Number: FA0202000104197

PARTIES

Complainant is Front Range Community College, Westminster, CO (“Complainant”) represented by Nancy Wahl, of Office of the Attorney General.  Respondent is dannyBOY inc., New York, NY (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <frontrangecommunitycollege.com>, registered with Tucows, 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 February 1, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 1, 2002.

On February 1, 2002, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <frontrangecommunitycollege.com> is registered with Tucows, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Tucows, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows, 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 February 5, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 25, 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@frontrangecommunitycollege.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 4, 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

Respondent’s <frontrangecommunitycollege.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE common law service 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

No Response was received.

FINDINGS

Complainant is an entity of the state of Colorado and is the largest community college in Colorado with locations in Boulder, Westminster, Longmont, Brighton, and Fort Collins, Colorado.  The college was established in 1985 and draws students from all over Colorado and beyond. 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 30, 2001, well after Complainant began using its FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE name.  Respondent has linked the disputed domain name to graphic anti-abortion websites including <holylamb.com> and <abortionismurder.org>, as well as a webite offering to sell the disputed domain name for $1500.  The registrants of the anti-abortion websites linked to the disputed domain indicate they have no knowledge of or connection with Respondent.

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 common law rights in its FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE service mark due to its use of the mark since 1985, and the subsequent wide recognition of Complainant’s mark in the academic community for higher education services.

Respondent’s <frontrangecommunitycollege.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE service mark because it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the top-level domain name “.com” and omits the spaces between the words, both of which are irrelevant alterations for the purpose of finding the domain name and service mark identical.  See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Hannover Ruckversicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft v. Hyungki Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”).

    

            The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is presumed not to have any rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name because it did not submit a Response in this proceeding.  See 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).

Respondent, known as dannyBoy Inc., has not provided any evidence, nor is there any, that it is commonly known as <frontrangecommunitycollege.com> or FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE.  Consequently, Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

Respondent’s use of the domain name fully incorporating Complainant’s service mark to link to graphic and politically charged websites coupled with an offer to sell the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent is blackmailing Complainant into purchasing the domain name in order to end the implied association of Complainant’s school with the values and beliefs presented on the controversial anti-abortion websites.  This is not a bona fide offering of goods pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one holds a domain name primarily for the purpose of marketing it to the owner of a corresponding trademark); 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).

           The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent’s linking of the disputed domain name to a website offering to sell the domain name for $1500 indicates that it registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).  See Little Six, Inc v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding Respondent's offer to sell the domain name at issue to Complainant was evidence of bad faith); see also Educational 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).  Additionally, Respondent’s attempt to blackmail Complainant into buying the disputed domain to avoid the negative publicity Complainant’s college and its students will receive if Internet users associate the school with the politically charged websites indicates bad faith registration and use.  See Ingram Micro Inc v. Noton Inc., D2001-0124 (WIPO Mar. 6, 2001) (finding bad faith registration and use where Respondent attempted to blackmail the Complainant into buying the disputed domain names with threats of adverse publicity to the Complainant’s employees and customers).

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 <frontrangecommunitycollege.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

Sandra Franklin, Panelist

Dated: March 13, 2002

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/385.html