DECISION

Rochester Institute of Technology v. Domain For Sale Inc. a/k/a John Barry

Claim Number: FA0204000112475

PARTIES

Complainant is Rochester Institute of Technology, New York, NY (“Complainant”) represented by James D. Kole, of Nixon Peabody LLP.  Respondent is Domain For Sale Inc. a/k/a John Barry, Bronx, NY (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <rochesterinstituteoftechnology.com>, registered with Enom.

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 26, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 29, 2002.

On April 30, 2002, Enom confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <rochesterinstituteoftechnology.com> is registered with Enom and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Enom has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom 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 May 1, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 21, 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@rochesterinstituteoftechnology.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 31, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name <rochesterinstituteoftechnology.com> is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. 

FINDINGS

Complainant has continually used the ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY mark in connection with its education and entertainment services since at least January 1, 1944.  Complainant owns United States Trademark Registration No. 1,716,652 for the ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY mark.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 27, 2002 without authorization from Complainant.  Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to a website at <abortionismurder.com>.  

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

Respondent’s disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY mark because the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.  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 “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name <robohelp.com> is identical to Complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference"); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

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

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has established its rights to and interests in the ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY mark.  Because Respondent has not submitted a Response in this matter, the Panel may presume it has no such rights or interests in <rochesterinstituteoftechnology.com>.  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, without the benefit of a Response, the Panel may accept all of Complainant’s assertions as true, unless clearly contradicted by the evidence in the record.  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”); see also 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’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it constitute fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name as a means to divert Internet traffic to the <abortionismurder.com> website.  See Rittenhouse Dev. Co. v. Domains For Sale, Inc., FA 105211 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 8, 2002) (finding that, by linking the confusingly similar domain name to an “Abortion is Murder” website, Respondent has not demonstrated a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name); 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, where such use is calculated to mislead consumers and tarnish the Complainant’s mark); see also 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).

There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY or <rochesterinstituteoftechnology.com>. Furthermore, Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY mark. Thus, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests 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 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).

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and, thus, Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant’s ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY mark is well known in the United States.  Given the prominence of the mark and Complainant’s continuous use of the mark, Respondent is considered to have been aware of the mark at the time it registered the identical domain name.  Thus, Respondent opportunistically traded on Complainant’s goodwill by using Complainant’s entire mark to divert traffic to an anti-abortion website.  Therefore, Respondent’s registration and use of Complainant’s mark was done in bad faith.  See Singapore Airlines Ltd v. P & P Servicios de Communicacion S.L., D2000-0643 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (“The domain name ‘singaporeairlines.com’ is so obviously connected with a well-known airline that its very registration and use by someone with no connection to the airline suggests opportunistic bad faith.  Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more blatant exercise in ‘cybersquatting.’”); see also London Metal Exch. Ltd. v. Hussain; D2000-1388 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the “letters ‘lme’ are so obviously connected with a well-known entity that their very use by someone with no connection to Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith”); see also Chanel, Inc. AG v. Designer Exposure, D2000-1832 (WIPO Feb. 15, 2001) (finding that Respondent's registration and use of the famous CHANEL mark suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the “domain names are so obviously connected with the Complainant that the use or registration by anyone other than Complainants suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith’”).

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

The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist

Dated: June 3, 2002

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/806.html