Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
L.F.P., INC. v. HUSTLERMAG.COM
Claim Number: FA0203000105862
PARTIES
Complainant
is L.F.P., INC., Beverly Hills, CA
(“Complainant”) represented by Paul J.
Cambria, of Lipsitz, Green
Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria, LLP. Respondent is HUSTLERMAG.COM,
Belize City, BELIZE (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <hustlermag.com>,
registered with BulkRegister.com.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known
conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically
on March 13, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint on March 14,
2002.
On
March 13, 2002, BulkRegister.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <hustlermag.com>
is registered with BulkRegister.com and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. 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
March 14, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of April 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@hustlermag.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
April 8, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon.
Carolyn Marks Johnson 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
allegations:
Respondent’s
<hustlermag.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s HUSTLER 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 did not file a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant registered HUSTLER with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on September 17, 1996 in
connection with
an online magazine for adult entertainment and subject
matter. Complainant has also registered
many other marks incorporating the HUSTLER name in several other countries.
Complainant is a worldwide provider of
services including magazines, videotapes, DVDs, and online entertainment. Complainant also markets the HUSTLER mark on
apparel, accessories, and other products throughout the world.
Complainant has used the HUSTLER mark
since 1972 in interstate commerce and has provided an online version of its
“Hustler Magazine”
at <hustler.com> since April 12, 1997.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on November 26, 1997. The disputed
domain name is currently “parked at” <top10sites.com>, which offers links
to numerous other websites, one of which,
<heavengate.com>, offers adult
entertainment in competition with Complainant.
The <top10sites.com> and <heavengate.com> domain names
maintain the same registrant address as 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 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 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 to and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has rights in the HUSTLER
mark due to its federal registration of the mark at the USPTO.
Respondent’s <hustlermag.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HUSTLER mark because it includes
Complainant’s mark in its entirety, merely adding
a “.com” and the abbreviation
“mag,” which describes Complainant’s main product. See Sony
Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that
“[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word…nor the suffix ‘.com’
detract
from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each
case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is
satisfied); see
also Marriott Int’l v. Café au lait,
FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s domain
name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s mark
“Marriott”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has established in this
proceeding that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained
in its entirety
in the domain name that Respondent registered. Because Respondent has not responded to this
Complaint, the Panel may find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in
the disputed domain name. See
Strum v. Nordic Net Exchange AB, FA 102843 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002)
(finding that Respondent's failure to respond to the Panel's additional requests
warranted
a finding for Complainant).
Further, Respondent’s use of the disputed
domain name as a link to other commercial sites, at least one of which was an
adult site
that would easily confuse Internet users as to the affiliation and
sponsorship of the website, is not a bona fide offering of goods
under Policy ¶
4(c)(i). See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc.,
FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial
use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet
traffic is not a
legitimate use of the domain name).
Moreover, Respondent’s use of the domain name incorporating
Complainant’s mark to sell goods similar to those of Complainant indicate
an
attempt to attract Complainant’s customers for commercial benefit. This activity suggests a lack of rights and
legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Household Int’l, Inc. v.
Cyntom Enter., FA 95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2000) (inferring that
Respondent registered the domain name <householdbank.com>, which
incorporates Complainant’s HOUSEHOLD BANK mark, with hopes of attracting
Complainant’s customers and thus finding no rights or legitimate
interests); see
also Kosmea Pty Ltd. v. Krpan,
D2000-0948 (WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where
Respondent has an intention to divert consumers of Complainant’s
products to
Respondent’s site by using Complainant’s mark).
Respondent, listed as “hustlermag.com,”
has not provided any evidence that it is an individual or a business entity
that is commonly
known as <hustlermag.com>
or as HUSTLER. Further, Respondent’s website makes no
mention of the HUSTLER name and does not appear to sell any products or provide
any services
under the HUSTLER name.
The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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 Great S. Wood Pres., Inc. v. TFA
Assocs., FA 95169 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Aug. 5, 2000) (finding that Respondent was not commonly known by the
domain name <greatsouthernwood.com>
where Respondent linked the domain
name to <bestoftheweb.com>).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant urges that Respondent registered
and used Complainant’s mark in bad faith.
The Policy permits the Panel to find that Respondent registered and used
the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), because it used the domain name to host a
competing pornographic website. See General Media Communications, Inc. v. Vine
Ent., FA 96554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2001) (finding bad faith where a
competitor of Complainant registered and used a domain name
confusingly similar
to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark to host a pornographic web site).
Further, Respondent’s registration and
use of the website as a way to commercially benefit from Complainant’s goodwill
by advertising
and linking to other websites is considered to be in bad faith
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000)
(finding bad faith where the Respondent linked the domain name in question to
websites displaying
banner advertisements and pornographic material); see
also ESPN, Inc. v. Ballerini, FA
95410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent
linked the domain name to another website <iwin.com>;
presumably, the
Respondent received a portion of the advertising revenue from site by directing
Internet traffic to the site, thus
using a domain name to attract Internet
users, for commercial gain); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Northway, FA 95464 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Oct. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered the domain name
<statefarmnews.com> in bad faith
because Respondent intended to use
Complainant’s marks to attract the public to the web site without permission
from Complainant).
Because Complainant’s mark is well-known,
was registered before Respondent’s use of the domain name at issue, and because
Respondent
has not provided an explanation for its use of the domain, the Panel
finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain
name in bad
faith. See Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000)
(finding bad faith when (1) the domain name contains the complainant’s mark in
its entirety, (2)
the mark is a coined word, well-known and in use prior to
Respondent’s registration of the domain name, and (3) Respondent fails
to
allege any good faith basis for use of the domain 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 <hustlermag.com>,
be transferred from Respondent
to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks
Johnson, Panelist
Dated: April 19, 2002.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/578.html