Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Mattel, Inc. v. RaveClub Berlin
Claim Number: FA0203000106115
PARTIES
Complainant
is Mattel, Inc., El Segundo, CA
(“Complainant”) represented by William
Dunnegan, of Perkins & Dunnegan. Respondent is RaveClub Berlin, Cherry Hill, NJ (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <whatherface.com>,
registered with Computer Services
Langenbach d/b/a Joker.com.
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. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on March 27, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 1, 2002.
On
March 28, 2002, Computer Services Langenbach d/b/a Joker.com confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <whatherface.com>
is registered with Computer Services Langenbach d/b/a Joker.com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Computer Services Langenbach d/b/a Joker.com has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Computer Services Langenbach d/b/a 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
April 1, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of April 22,
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@whatherface.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
May 1, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a
single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James
A. Carmody, Esq., 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 the Respondent to the
Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
The
< whatherface.com> domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant's WHAT’S HER FACE 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 has used the WHAT’S HER FACE
mark in commerce since August of 2000.
Complainant registered the mark on the Principal Register of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office on March 7, 2002.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on October 21, 2001. Respondent is
using the disputed domain name as a portal to divert Internet users to
<amatuervideos.nl>. This website
contains pornographic content.
Respondent is a notorious cybersquatter also known as John Zuccarini,
and therefore has registered numerous domain names that infringe
on the
trademarks of others.
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 established that it has
rights in its WHAT’S HER FACE mark through registration and continuous
use. Furthermore, Respondent’s <whatherface.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the
entirety of Complainant’s mark and merely omits the
apostrophe and the “s” from
“what’s.” The omission of single letter
and an apostrophe is not enough to create a distinct mark capable of overcoming
a claim of confusing
similarity. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v.
HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the
letter “s” from the Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark did not
change
the overall impression of the mark and thus made the disputed domain name
confusingly similar to it); see also Chi-Chi’s
Inc. v. Rest. Commentary, D2000-0321 (WIPO June 29, 2000) (finding the
domain name <chichis.com> to be identical to Complainant’s CHI-CHI’S
mark, despite
the omission of the apostrophe and hyphen from the mark).
Furthermore, Respondent’s domain name is
confusingly similar because the omission of spaces between the words “WHAT’S
HER FACE” in
Complainant’s mark does not create a distinct mark. Internet domain names require that spaces
between words be omitted, therefore, the omission of spaces between words is
irrelevant
when determining whether or not the domain name is confusingly
similar or identical. See Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. The
Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding the domain name
<mannbrothers.com> confusingly similar to Complainant’s MANN BROTHERS
mark “so as to likely confuse Internet users who may believe they are doing
business with Complainant or with an entity whose services
are endorsed by,
sponsored by, or affiliated with Complainant”)
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has failed to 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’s domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark and therefore Respondent is attempting to attract
Complainant’s
customers to Respondent’s website for Respondent’s commercial
gain. This type of use is not
considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i). See 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). Furthermore, Respondent’s website features pornographic material,
and therefore will tarnish Complainant’s goodwill if Internet users
believe
there is an affiliation between Respondent and Complainant. See 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 the Complainant’s mark).
Respondent is not commonly known as
WHAT’S HER FACE or <whatherface.com>. Respondent is commonly known
as John Zuccarini or one of his numerous aliases including RaveClub
Berlin. Therefore Respondent has no
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 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’s domain name is a likely
misspelling of Complainant’s mark. The
registration and use of a misspelled mark is not considered to be a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of a domain name and
therefore does not create
legitimate rights or interests 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent registered a confusingly
similar domain name in order to display pornographic material. The use of a confusingly similar domain name
for an adult content website is evidence of 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).
Respondent is engaging in typosquatting.
This practice of “typosquatting” has been recognized as a bad faith use of a
domain name
under the Policy. See e.g. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini,
FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2000) (awarding <hewlitpackard.com> a
misspelling of HEWLETT-PACKARD to Complainant); see also Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (awarding <davemathewsband.com> and
<davemattewsband.com>, common misspellings
of DAVE MATTHEWS BAND to
Complainant); see also
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 <whatherface.com> be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: May 8, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/684.html