Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Creditlink Corporation v. Vadzim Holik
Claim
Number: FA0304000154524
Complainant is
Creditlink Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA (“Complainant”) represented
by Geva Baumer, of Law Office of Gary Harrison. Respondent is
Vadzim Holik, Gomel, BELARUS (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <crimefactor.com>, registered with Wild
West Domains, Inc.
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.
James
A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 11, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 14, 2003.
On
April 14, 2003, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <crimefactor.com> is registered with Wild West
Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild
West Domains, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West
Domains, 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 16, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
May 6, 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@crimefactor.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 15, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James
A. Carmody, Esq., 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 <crimefactor.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s CRIMEFACTOR mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <crimefactor.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <crimefactor.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Creditlink Corp., is involved in providing credit reports and background checks
on prospective tenants for commercial
and residential purposes. Complainant
holds U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 2,568,600 for the
CRIMEFACTOR mark
registered on June 25, 2002. Beginning in February 2001,
Complainant started using the CRIMEFACTOR mark in order to identify its
services and distinguish its offerings from the services of others.
On or about
February 26, 2001, Complainant registered the <crimefactor.com> domain
name for a period of one year. Complainant asserts that although it paid the
required renewal fees, the registrar failed to
renew the registration and it
consequently lapsed.
Respondent,
Vadzim Holik, registered the disputed <crimefactor.com> domain
name on February 8, 2003. Complainant’s investigation of Respondent reveals
that the subject domain name resolves to a website
that links to numerous
pop-up pornographic advertisements.
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 CRIMEFACTOR mark through registration with the USPTO
and continuous use of the mark since
February 2001.
Respondent’s <crimefactor.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s CRIMEFACTOR mark. The disputed
domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety,
and only deviates
with the addition of the top-level domain “.com.” Because top-level domains are
a required feature in a domain
name, their presence is irrelevant in
determining “identicality” under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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’”); see also 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).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent
failed to contest Complainant’s contentions; therefore, all reasonable
inferences made by Complainant are regarded as true
unless clearly contradicted
by the evidence. Once Complainant asserts that Respondent is lacking rights and
legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name, the burden shifts to
Respondent to provide credible evidence that supports its claim to the domain
name.
Because Respondent failed to submit a Response, Respondent fails to
advance any set of circumstances that would indicate legitimate
rights in the
domain name. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc.,
FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to
respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in
the allegations of
Complainant to be deemed true); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228
(WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion
by Complainant that Respondent has
no right or legitimate interest is
sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such
a right or legitimate
interest does exist).
Complainant’s
evidence indicates that Respondent is using the subject domain name to divert
Internet users to pornographic pop-up
advertisements. Through administrative
deficiencies, Complainant’s registration for <crimefactor.com> was
allowed to lapse. Complainant’s prior
registration of the same domain name is a factor in considering Respondent’s
rights or legitimate interests in
the domain name, or lack thereof. Currently,
Respondent attempts to profit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s
mark by
incorporating CRIMEFACTOR in the disputed domain name and diverting
consumers to commercial websites. Such use fails to establish rights in
the <crimefactor.com> domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and
(iii) because Respondent is tarnishing Complainant’s mark and the goodwill
contained therein.
See Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web
Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that Complainant’s prior registration of the same domain
name is a factor in considering
Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in
the domain name); 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); see also MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com,
D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in
the famous MSNBC mark where Respondent attempted to
profit using the
Complainant’s mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website).
Respondent has
no apparent trademark or other intellectual property rights in the CRIMEFACTOR
mark, and the domain name does not consist
of Respondent’s legal name or a name
that is otherwise commonly used to identify Respondent. Further, Respondent’s
diversionary use
of the domain name to provide a gateway to pornographic
websites suggests there is no legitimate connection between Respondent and
the
“crimefactor” second-level domain. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to
make use of Complainant’s mark in the domain name
or in connection with any Internet
offering. Therefore, Respondent fails to establish rights in the domain name
under 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 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).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel infers
that Respondent registered and used the <crimefactor.com> domain
name in bad faith as articulated under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Specifically,
Respondent is using the <crimefactor.com> domain name to divert
Internet users to a portal that leads to pornographic websites. Panels have
consistently held that the use of
an infringing domain name in this manner is
evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See
STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Hyunsuk, FA 143711 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Mar. 21,
2003). Circumstances indicate that Respondent registered the domain name to
intentionally attract
Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of
confusion with Complainant’s CRIMEFACTOR mark. See Kmart v. Kahn,
FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits
from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when
the domain name resolves
to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be
concluded that Respondent
is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Am.
Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21,
2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered and used an infringing
domain name to attract
users to a website sponsored by Respondent).
Additionally,
Respondent’s opportunistic exploitation of Complainant’s administrative
difficulties, which involved the unintentional
lapse of the domain name
registration, evidences bad faith. As stated, Respondent’s domain name resolves
to pornographic content
that tarnishes Complainant’s CRIMEFACTOR mark.
Respondent is attempting to capitalize from Complainant’s development of its
CRIMEFACTOR
mark and corresponding website. Therefore, Respondent’s
registration of the lapsed domain name constitutes opportunistic bad faith
under the Policy. See InTest Corp.
v. Servicepoint, FA 95291 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that
where the domain name has been previously used by Complainant, subsequent
registration of the domain name by anyone else indicates bad faith, absent
evidence to the contrary); see also
BAA plc v. Spektrum Media Inc., D2000-1179 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2000) (finding
bad faith where Respondent took advantage of Complainant’s failure to renew a
domain name).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <crimefactor.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated:
May 21, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/514.html