DECISION

Thrifty, Inc. v. RaveClub Berlin

Claim Number: FA0203000105861

PARTIES

Complainant is Thrifty, Inc., Tulsa, OK (“Complainant”) represented by David R. Haarz, of Dickinson Wright, PLLC.  Respondent is RaveClub Berlin, Cherry Hill, NJ (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <thrify.com>, registered with CSL Gmbh Joker.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 20, 2002.

On March 14, 2002, CSL Gmbh Joker.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <thrify.com> is registered with CSL Gmbh Joker.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  CSL Gmbh Joker.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the CSL Gmbh Joker.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 21, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 10, 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@thrify.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 19, 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:

The <thrify.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's THRIFTY 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 submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant has used the THRIFTY mark in relation to its Rent-a-Car business since 1957.  Complainant owns 16 service mark registrations of the mark in the United States including Reg. Nos. 816,250 and 880,666 registered on October 4, 1966 and November 11, 1969 respectively.  Complainant has spent significant sums of money promoting and advertising its mark and as a result Complainant’s mark has become very well known.  Complainant also operates a website at the domain <thrifty.com> where it offers online vehicle rental services.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on Sept. 3, 2000.  Respondent has linked the <thrify.com> domain name to a portal website offering access to XXX-rated websites.

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 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 established that it has rights in the THRIFTY mark through registration and continuous use.  Furthermore, Respondent’s <thrify.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it is merely a misspelling of Complainant’s THRIFTY mark.  It has been established that a misspelling of a well-known mark is not enough to create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity.  See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000) (finding that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s STATE FARM mark); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2000) (finding the domain name <hewlitpackard.com> to be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s HEWLETT-PACKARD mark).

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

Rights to or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has established its rights to the mark contained in its misspelled version in the domain name registered by Respondent. Further, Respondent has not come forward with a Response and therefore it is presumed that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  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).

Furthermore, when Respondent fails to submit a Response the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in favor of Complainant.  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”).

Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name in order to divert Complainant’s customers to a portal website offering sexually explicit material.  The use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert Complainant’s customers to an unconnected website is not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).  See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent diverted Complainant’s customers to his websites); 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 tarnish Complainant’s mark).

Respondent, known to the Panel as RaveClub Berlin, has not come forward to present any evidence that it is commonly known as <thrify.com>.  Therefore, Respondent has not established that it 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 Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).

Respondent is using a misspelling of Complainant’s well-known mark to divert Internet users to a portal website featuring pornographic material.  This is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (finding that fair use does not apply where the domain names are misspellings of Complainant's mark); see also 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 the Respondent linked these domain names to its pornographic website).

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

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant further urges that Respondent acted in bad faith.  The <thrify.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's THRIFTY mark and the Internet user will likely believe that there is an affiliation between Respondent and Complainant.  Registration of the confusingly similar <thrify.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that Respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”).

Respondent has linked the disputed domain name to a portal website offering sexually explicit material.  This type of behavior is likely to cause Internet user confusion and tarnish Complainant’s well-known mark.  Therefore Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.  See MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that the association of a confusingly similar domain name with a pornographic website can 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).

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 <thrify.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist

Dated: April 30, 2002.

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/649.html