Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

DECISION

The Sports Authority Michigan, Inc. v. Lajos Szabo

Claim Number:  FA0212000139694

PARTIES

Complainant is The Sports Authority Michigan, Inc., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Robert S. Gurwin, of Rader Fishman & Grauer PLLC. Respondent is Lajos Szabo, Ciko, HUNGARY (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <americasportsauthority.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Sandra Franklin as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on December 31, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 2, 2003.

On January 2, 2003, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <americasportsauthority.com> is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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 January 2, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 22, 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@americasportsauthority.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 January 28, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin 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 assertions:

1. Respondent’s <americasportsauthority.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE SPORTS AUTHORITY mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <americasportsauthority.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <americasportsauthority.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant, The Sports Authority Michigan, Inc., is the holder of the service marks THE SPORTS AUTHORITY (U.S. Reg. No. 1,529,035, registered on March 7, 1989), THESPORTSAUTHORITY.COM (U.S. Reg. No. 2,409,389, registered on November 28, 2000), and a host of variations of these marks. Complainant holds numerous registrations of the mark worldwide, including one in Hungary, Respondent’s place of domicile (Reg. No. 140,932, registered on June 24, 1993). Complainant was the first North American business to adopt and use THE SPORTS AUTHORITY mark, and the first retailer to adopt and use the word “Authority” as the core element of its identity. Complainant has used the <thesportsauthority.com> domain name since July of 1995, and has subsequently registered over 115 variations of the same. Under this mark, Complainant operates as a retailer for sporting goods, and also sponsors a wide variety of amateur and professional sports teams, events, and arenas.

Respondent, Lajos Szabo, registered the <americasportsauthority.com> domain name on May 15, 2002, and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any fashion. Upon registering the disputed domain name, Respondent signed up for Complainant’s online affiliate program, under which Complainant pays domain name Registrants (such as Respondent) a commission for each Internet shopper directed to Complainant’s website who subsequently makes a purchase.

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 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 and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the THE SPORTS AUTHORITY mark through registration on the Principal Register of the USPTO as well as through widespread use and registration of the mark worldwide.

Respondent’s <americasportsauthority.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark. The relevant portion of Complainant’s mark (SPORTS AUTHORITY) is incorporated in its entirety within the disputed domain name, and Respondent has merely added the geographic identifier “america.” This is not sufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See JVC Americas Corp. v. Macafee, CPR006 (CPR Nov. 10, 2000) (finding that the domain name registered by Respondent, <jvc-america.com>, is substantially similar to, and nearly identical to Complainant's JVC mark); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, D2000-0150 (WIPO May 2, 2000) (finding that the domain name, <walmartcanada.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous mark).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <americasportsauthority.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPORTS AUTHORITY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is using the <americasportsauthority.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website, earning a commission from Complainant’s affiliate program as a “reward” for infringing on its trademark without license or authorization. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, does not evidence a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, and leads the Panel to infer that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. As such, Respondent’s activity does not equate to any of the circumstances demonstrating rights and legitimate interests in a domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii). See Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy  ¶ 4(a)(ii) where it used the domain name <deluxeform.com> to redirect users to Complainant’s <deluxeforms.com> domain name and to receive a commission from Complainant through its affiliate program); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion with Complainant's website and marks its use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use).

The Panel may also view Respondent’s lack of response as evidence that it 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); 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).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <americasportsauthority.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel infers from the facts that Respondent registered the infringing <americasportsauthority.com> domain name with the intent of creating a likelihood of confusion in the minds of Internet users as to the source or sponsorship of the domain name. As this likelihood of confusion was fostered by Respondent so that it could garner commercial gain from Complainant’s affiliate program, its actions run afoul of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), and evidence bad faith use and registration of the domain name. See Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding Respondent registered and used the <deluxeform.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by redirecting its users to Complainant’s <deluxeforms.com> domain name, thus receiving a commission from Complainant through its affiliate program); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). 

The Panel thus finds that Respondent registered and used the <americasportsauthority.com> domain name in bad faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <americasportsauthority.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 Sandra Franklin, Panelist

Dated: February 4, 2003

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/130.html