Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Vivendi Universal Games and Davidson
& Associates, Inc. v. New Gideon, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0304000153625
Complainant is
Vivendi Universal Games and Davidson & Associates, Inc., Los
Angeles, CA (“Complainant”) represented by David J. Steele of
Christie, Parker & Hale LLP. Respondent is New Gideon, Balto, MD
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <blizzardstudios.com> registered with Intercosmos
Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.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.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 2, 2003; the Forum
received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 2, 2003.
On
April 2, 2003, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <blizzardstudios.com> is
registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.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 3, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
April 23, 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@blizzardstudios.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
April 29, 2003, 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.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <blizzardstudios.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLIZZARD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate
interests in the <blizzardstudios.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <blizzardstudios.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the BLIZZARD mark,
including Reg. No. 2,490,187
(registered on January 7, 2000) in relation to computer game software and
instruction manuals sold as
a unit.
Complainant operates a website at <battle.net> where more than
200,000 active users play Blizzard Entertainment’s online computer
games.
Respondent
registered the <blizzardstudios.com> domain name on April 2,
2002. Respondent is using the disputed
domain name to divert Internet traffic to a pornographic website.
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 its rights in the BLIZZARD mark through registration with the USPTO
and continuous use in commerce.
Respondent’s <blizzardstudios.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed
domain name appropriates Complainant’s entire registered
mark and simply adds
the descriptive term “studios” to the end of the mark. The addition of a descriptive term to a famous
mark does not significantly differentiate the disputed domain name from the
mark, especially
when the additional term is closely associated with the
trademark holder’s business, because the famous mark remains the most
significant
element of the domain name. See Brown
& Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
HOYLE mark, and that the addition
of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which
Complainant is engaged, does
not take the disputed domain name out of the realm
of confusing similarity); see also Marriott Int’l v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar.
13, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is
confusingly similar
to Complainant’s MARRIOTT mark).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
failed to submit a Response to the Complainant’s allegations. Thus, the Panel may infer that all of the
reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint are true. 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 Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000)
(finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s
allegations are true unless
clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Moreover,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could establish any
rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. When Complainant asserts a prima facie
case, Respondent bears the burden of refuting Complainant’s assertions and
establishing its rights to or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name.
See Geocities v. Geociites.com,
D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name because the Respondent
never submitted
a response or provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise); see
also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l,
D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent fails to respond).
Respondent is
using the <blizzardstudios.com> domain name to divert Internet
traffic to a website that displays graphic, pornographic images. The use of a domain name confusingly similar
to a registered mark to redirect Internet users to a pornographic website is
neither
a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(c)(iii). 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 to tarnish the Complainant’s mark); see
also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v.
Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that infringing on
another's well-known mark to provide a link to a pornographic
site is not a
legitimate or fair use).
Respondent is not commonly known by either BLIZZARD
STUDIOS or <blizzardstudios.com>.
Therefore, Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 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).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
using the <blizzardstudios.com> domain name, a domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLIZZARD mark, to redirect Internet users
to a pornographic website. Respondent’s
registration and use of the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to
a pornographic website demonstrates Respondent’s
bad faith registration and use
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CCA
Indus., Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (finding that “this
association with a pornographic web site can itself constitute bad faith”);
see
also Youtv, Inc. v. Alemdar, FA
94243 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent
attracted users to his website for commercial gain
and linked his website to
pornographic websites).
Furthermore, the
Panel may infer that Respondent is benefiting monetarily from its operation of
a pornographic website. Thus,
Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website
for commercial gain by creating a likelihood
of confusion with Complainant’s
mark, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used
the domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent
was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its
commercial website);
see also
Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad
faith where the Respondent linked the domain name in question to websites
displaying
banner advertisements and pornographic material).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <blizzardstudios.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret), Panelist
Dated:
May 5, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/452.html