Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc. v.
Giacomo Furlan
Claim Number: FA0204000109054
PARTIES
Complainant
is Gold & Silver Reserve, Inc.,
Wilmington, DE (“Complainant”) represented by Michael F. Snyder, of Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP. Respondent
is Giacomo Furlan, Bruino, Torino,
ITALY (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <e-yold.com>, <e-vold.com>, <e-qold.com>, <e-gpld.com>, <e-gopd.com>, <e-golx.com>, <e-gols.com>, <e-golr.com>, <e-gole.com>, <e-golc.com>, <e-glox.com>, <e-glld.com>, <e-gkld.com>, <e-gild.com>, <e-g9ld.com>, <e-g0ld.com>, and <3-gold.com>, registered with Verisign, Inc.
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.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on April 4, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 8, 2002.
On
April 8, 2002, Verisign, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
names <e-yold.com>, <e-vold.com>, <e-qold.com>, <e-gpld.com>, <e-gopd.com>, <e-golx.com>, <e-gols.com>, <e-golr.com>, <e-gole.com>, <e-golc.com>, <e-glox.com>, <e-glld.com>, <e-gkld.com>, <e-gild.com>, <e-g9ld.com>, <e-g0ld.com>, and <3-gold.com> are registered with Verisign, Inc. and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Verisign, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Verisign,
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
April 10, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of April 30,
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@e-yold.com, postmaster@e-vold.com, postmaster@e-qold.com,
postmaster@e-gpld.com, postmaster@e-gopd.com, postmaster@e-golx.com,
postmaster@e-gols.com,
postmaster@e-golr.com, postmaster@e-gole.com, postmaster@e-golc.com, postmaster@e-glox.com,
postmaster@e-glld.com,
postmaster@e-gkld.com, postmaster@e-gild.com, postmaster@e-g9ld.com,
postmaster@e-g0ld.com, and postmaster@3-gold.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 22, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable
Charles K. McCotter,
Jr. (Ret.) 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
1.
Respondent has registered seventeen domain names that are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s E-GOLD mark. The only
difference between the mark and each of the seventeen disputed domain names are
common spelling errors, and thus the domain
names do not distinguish themselves
from Complainant’s mark.
2.
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is a blatant attempt to trade on
the goodwill associated with Complainant and Complainant’s
E-GOLD mark. Respondent has not received a license from
Complainant, and diverting Internet users by taking advantage of common
misspellings is
not a legitimate use of the disputed domain names. Further, Respondent is not commonly known by
any of the disputed domain names.
Therefore, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of
the seventeen disputed domain names.
3.
Respondent registered the seventeen confusingly similar domain names to disrupt
Complainant’s business, and thus has registered
the disputed domain names in
bad faith. Furthermore, Respondent’s
use of seventeen confusingly similar domain names that are connected to
confusingly similar websites is
evidence that Respondent has used the disputed
domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
B.
Respondent
No
Response was submitted.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Gold & Silver Reserve,
Inc. has been providing services in connection with online monetary exchange
under the trademark
E-GOLD since at least as early as November 1996. Complainant registered its E-GOLD mark on
December 29, 1998 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No.
2,215,173,
for administration of an electronic medium of monetary exchange,
backed by precious metal in the physical custody of a repository
and owned by
another party (The E-Gold Bullion Reserve Special Purpose Trust). Complainant owns and operates an Internet
website located at <e-gold.com>, which reflects its goods and
services.
Respondent registered <e-qold.com>
on April 8, 2001. Respondent registered
the remaining sixteen disputed domain names on April 7, 2001. Respondent links each of the disputed domain
names to a website that not only offers similar services, but uses
Complainant’s E-GOLD
mark on the corresponding websites. According to the Complaint, Respondent’s
websites are a complete replica of the website associated with Complainant’s E-GOLD
mark,
<e-gold.com>, and Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is
to drain the E-GOLD account of Complainant’s customers.
Respondent has sent an e-mail to
Complainant stating that he is the owner of “more of 30 e-gold mistyped web
site” and that Respondent
“could change web hosting service everyday until you
close your e-gold web site.” Respondent
then requested $3,000 “every [M]onday” to “suspend all the attacks against”
Complainant.
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 its right to
the E-GOLD mark through registration with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office and
subsequent continuous use. All seventeen disputed domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark.
First, Each of the seventeen disputed
domain names incorporate the generic top-level domain (gTLD). Since it has been held that an addition of a
gTLD does not create a distinguishable mark capable of overcoming confusing
similarity,
the disputed domain names are similar to Complainant’s mark. 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 Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1146 (9th Cir. Feb.
11, 2002) (“Internet users searching for a company’s [w]ebsite . . . assume, as
a rule of thumb, that the domain name
of a particular company will be the
company name [or trademark] followed by ‘.com.’”).
Second, each of the seventeen disputed
domain names misspells Complainant’s E-GOLD mark in some manner. For example, one disputed domain name is <e-yold.com>
where the disputed domain name uses a “y” rather than the “g” of E-GOLD. Another example is <3-gold.com>,
which Respondent has used a “3” to replace the “e” of E-GOLD. In both cases, Respondent takes advantage
of typos; Respondent’s intent is evident considering that each mistaken
character is right
next to the intended character. Further, this is the case in sixteen of the seventeen domain
names; only <e-qold.com> is not in the same vein. However, because “q” and “g” are confusingly
similar and like the other sixteen disputed domain names, <e-qold.com>
takes advantage of a typographical error of Complainant’s mark, therefore, all
seventeen disputed domain names are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s
mark. 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 Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source, D2000-0362 (WIPO June 19, 2000)
(finding that the domain name <0xygen.com>, with zero in place of letter
“O,” “appears calculated
to trade on Complainant’s name by exploiting likely
mistakes by users when entering the url address”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has not filed a Response. Therefore, the Panel presumes that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain
names. 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). Because a Response was
not filed, the Panel presumes that all allegations in the Complaint are 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).
Respondent has used seventeen confusingly
similar domain names to divert Internet users to a website that causes
confusion as to whether
Complainant sponsors or endorses the website associated
with each of the seventeen disputed domain names. Such activity is not considered a bona fide offering in
connection with the disputed domain names pursuant to 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); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v.
Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d
110, 114 (D.Mass
2002) (finding that, because the Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the
domain names was to cause confusion with the
Complainant's website and marks,
it's use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or
services or any other
fair use)
Respondent
is known as “Giacomo Furlan” and there is no evidence presented that Respondent
is commonly known by any of the seventeen
disputed domain names. Therefore, Respondent has not satisfied
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 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).
Respondent
has used seventeen domain names that take advantage of various misspellings of
Complainant’s E-GOLD mark. Such use is
not considered a right or legitimate interest 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 has registered seventeen
confusingly similar domain names that direct Internet users to a website that
offers nearly identical
services to Complainant’s website. Therefore, there is an inference that
Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Site Design
Online, FA 95753 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (transferring BAYAREAVW.COM
from Respondent automobile dealership specializing in Volkswagens
to
Complainant); see also Fossil,
Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (transferring
<fossilwatch.com> from Respondent watch dealer to Complainant); see
also Nokia Corp. v. Uday Lakhani,
D2000-0833 (WIPO Oct. 19, 2000) (transferring <nokias.com> from
Respondent cellular phone dealer to Complainant).
Respondent has registered seventeen
disputed domain names, which incorporate various misspellings of Complainant’s
E-GOLD mark. It has been held that this
practice of “typosquatting” has been recognized as a bad faith use of domain
names under the UDRP, therefore
Respondent has used the disputed domain names
in bad faith. See 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).
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
should be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
following domain names: <e-yold.com>, <e-vold.com>, <e-qold.com>, <e-gpld.com>, <e-gopd.com>, <e-golx.com>, <e-gols.com>, <e-golr.com>, <e-gole.com>, <e-golc.com>, <e-glox.com>, <e-glld.com>, <e-gkld.com>, <e-gild.com>, <e-g9ld.com>, <e-g0ld.com>, and <3-gold.com> be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 23, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/764.html