Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
American University v. Americus
University and Ronald Bassett
Claim
Number: FA0309000193904
Complainant is American University, Washington, DC
(“Complainant”) represented by Sherri N.
Blount, of Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery. Respondent is Americus University and Ronald Bassett, Roadtown, Tortola,
British Virgin Islands (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <americusuniversity.com>, registered with Register.Com.
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.
Hon.
Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on September 11, 2003;
the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on September 15, 2003.
On
September 11, 2003, Register.Com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <americusuniversity.com> is registered with Register.Com
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.Com has
verified that Respondent
is bound by the Register.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
September 22, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting
a deadline of October 13, 2003 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@americusuniversity.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
October 20. 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon.
Ralph Yachnin 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.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <americusuniversity.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN UNIVERSITY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <americusuniversity.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <americusuniversity.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
American University, is a university located in the District of Columbia,
United States, and was chartered by an Act
of the U.S. Congress in 1893. Since
that date, Complainant has used the AMERICAN UNIVERSITY mark in commerce in
connection with various
educational services, novelty items, apparel,
newsletters and other merchandise. In addition to its common-law rights in the
AMERICAN
UNIVERSITY mark, Complainant has obtained registrations of the mark
worldwide, including in the European Community (e.g. Reg. Nos. 170,951
and 2,260,099), New Zealand (Reg. No. 212,751) and in the United Kingdom (Reg.
Nos. 1,451,537 and 2,272,273). Complainant
also holds pending trademark
applications for the AU design and word mark in the United States (Ser. Nos.
76/458652 and 76/458653),
a mark first used in connection with Complainant’s
educational services in 1995.
Respondent,
Americus University and Ronald Bassett, registered the <americusuniversity.com>
domain name on June 8, 2001. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host
the online, distance learning “Americus University,”
which purports to sell
college degree packages for Associates, Bachelors, Masters and Doctorial
degrees. However, Respondent’s “university”
is not recognized as a college or
university by any of the accepted U.S. or international educational accrediting
institutions. The
diplomas sold by Respondent are similar in design to those
presented by Complainant, and Respondent has adopted Complainant’s AU
design
mark at the website at the disputed domain name. Respondent also offers
housewares, apparel and other novelty items bearing
the AU mark at the disputed
domain name.
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.
Complainant has
established rights in the AMERICAN UNIVERSITY mark through registration of the
mark with the appropriate governmental
agencies worldwide, as well as through
widespread and continuous use of the mark in commerce. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher,
D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that
registration of a mark is prima facie evidence
of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently
distinctive. Respondent has the burden
of refuting this assumption); see also KCTS Television Inc. v.
Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO April 20, 2001) (holding that it does
not matter for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy whether
Complainant’s
mark is registered in a country other than that of Respondent’s
place of business).
Respondent’s <americusuniversity.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s AMERICAN UNIVERSITY mark. Respondent’s replacement of the letters
“an” at the
end of the word AMERICAN with the letters “us” create a domain name
that remains confusingly similar in appearance to Complainant’s
registered
mark. See Surface Prot.
Indus., Inc. v. 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; hence, satisfying the
confusing similarity requirement”); see also Desktop Media, Inc. v. Desktop Media, Inc., FA 96815 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Apr. 12, 2001) (“[F]or the limited purposes of the domain name dispute
resolution process[,] a low threshold
of proof is all that is required to meet
the first element ….”).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <americusuniversity.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s AMERICAN UNIVERSITY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is
using the disputed domain name to host an online, distance learning university.
However, Respondent does not appear
to be accredited by any educational
organization. Furthermore, given Respondent’s use of Complainant’s AU mark
(without authorization)
and the similarity between the diplomas offered by
Respondent and Complainant, the Panel infers that Respondent’s motivation in
registering
the disputed domain name was to capitalize on confusion in the
minds of Internet users between Complainant’s AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
and
Respondent’s “Americus University.” Respondent has not come forward with an
plausible explanation as to why it has chosen to
use a domain name that is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, or why it has chosen to appropriate
Complainant’s AU mark at
its domain name. Thus, the Panel holds that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of
goods
or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain
name. Therefore, Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) do not apply to
Respondent in this
dispute. 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); see also Avery Dennison Corp.
v. Steele, FA 133626 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan 10, 2003) (finding that
Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
where it used Complainant’s mark, without authorization, to attract Internet
users to its business, which competed with Complainant).
As Respondent is
not licensed to use Complainant’s marks for any purpose, and as there is no
reliable evidence before the Panel indicating
that Respondent is actually
“commonly known by” the disputed domain name as contemplated by Policy ¶
4(c)(ii), the Panel finds that
this provision of the Policy does not apply to
Respondent. See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May
16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one
has been commonly known
by the domain name prior to registration of the domain
name to prevail"); see also Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461
(Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding
that Respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com>
domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS
contact information because there was “no
affirmative evidence before the Panel that Respondent was ever ‘commonly known
by’ the disputed domain name prior to
its registration of the disputed domain
name”).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
<americusuniversity.com> domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
using the disputed domain name to host an online university that seeks to
commercially capitalize on the goodwill that
Complainant has built up around
the AMERICAN UNIVERSITY mark. Respondent’s use of the AU design mark at the
disputed domain name,
its sale of diplomas that are confusingly similar to those
supplied by graduates of Complainant’s university, and Respondent’s sale
of
merchandise that carries the AU design mark all combine to create a likelihood
of confusion in the minds of Internet users as
to whether Complainant is
affiliated with Respondent’s “Americus University.” Respondent’s commercial
benefit from this liklihood
of confusion evidences Respondent’s bad faith
registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
See Pfizer, Inc. v. Papol Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002)
(finding that because the link between Complainant’s mark and the content
advertised on Respondent’s
website was obvious, Respondent “must have known
about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”); see
also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja,
Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use
where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make
any active use of the
disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with
the Complainant”).
The Panel thus
finds that Respondent registered and used the <americusuniversity.com>
domain name in bad faith, and that
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <americusuniversity.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: October 30, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/1016.html