Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v.
Traffic Secret LLC c/o Aaron Scovel
Claim Number: FA0304000155460
PARTIES
Complainant
is Clear Channel Communications, Inc.,
San Antonio, TX (“Complainant”) represented by Pamela B. Huff, of Cox & Smith Incorporated. Respondent is Traffic Secret LLC c/o Aaron Scovel, Nehalem, OR
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <<waws.com>>,
registered with Enom, Inc.
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.
Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on April 23, 2003; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 25, 2003.
On
April 30, 2003, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <<waws.com>> is
registered with Enom, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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
May 1, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of May 21,
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@waws.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 7, 2003.
On May 14, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request to
have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus R.
Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Complainant
is the owner of a commercial television station with the call letters,
WAWS. The call letters were granted to
Complainant by the Federal Communications Commission.
Complainant
has operated the television station under the call sign, WAWS, since July 1981
thereby establishing substantial common
law rights to the mark. Complainant has used the mark on signs, in
advertisements, on brochures describing the company and its services, on
promotional materials
associated with the company and its services, on the
Internet, and in other ways customary in the trade throughout the world. Complainant has expended significant time,
money, and effort to establish public recognition of its mark as identifying it
as the
source of high quality television broadcasting services.
As
a result of these efforts, Complainant has established substantial customer
recognition of the WAWS mark, and it has become a part
of Complainant’s
valuable assets.
The
Respondent has registered the domain name <waws.com>, utilizing
the mark owned by Complainant.
Respondent’s
use of the domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods
and services.
Respondent
is not commonly known by the domain name.
Respondent
is not making fair use of the domain name.
Respondent uses the domain name to link to a site containing sexually
explicit material.
Respondent
registered the domain name in bad faith because Respondent is not making fair
use of the domain name and because Respondent
acquired the domain name solely
for the purpose of commercial gain by misleadingly capturing consumers of the
mark at issue and diverting
unsuspecting consumers of Complainant’s services to
Respondent’s pornography site.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
is an individual residing in the State of Oregon. Respondent registered the domain name <waws.com> several
years ago while a high school student. Respondent registered the domain name
under the name, Traffic Secret, LLC, but Traffic
Secret, LLC is no longer a
business.
Respondent
is a good person. Respondent never once
heard that there were any conflicts with another business. A couple of months ago, Respondent was on
the net and saw a site called Adultcash.com.
He went there and redirected his domains, including <waws.com> to
that site. Respondent had no clue that
there would be any legal conflicts.
Respondent
believed that he had freedom to do what he wished to do with the domain name
since he was the registered owner of it.
He has now learned that there are limits. Respondent is sorry for what he has done and will never do it
again without fully researching the domain.
Respondent would like to retain the domain name for use in
the future to direct the domain to a poetry website.
C.
Additional Submissions
None
FINDINGS
1. Complainant is owner of a commercial
television station doing business in Jacksonville, Florida, under the call
sign, WAWS.
2. Complainant has operated the television
station since 1981 and has established common law rights to the mark WAWS.
3. Respondent registered the domain name <waws.com>
on April 11, 1999.
4. The inference is made that Respondent
made no use of the domain name until several months ago when he went to
AdultCash.com and directed
<waws.com> to the link supplied by
AdultCash.com. Thereafter, <waws.com>
directed users to a site showing sexually explicit material.
5. Complainant’s mark, WAWS, is identical to
the domain name <waws.com>.
6. Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name <waws.com>.
7. Respondent registered the domain name in
bad faith.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
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;
(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.
A domain name must be identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has
rights, in order
for the Complainant to prevail in a domain name dispute. See Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The fact that Complainant has operated the television
station under the call sign WAWS since 1981 supplies the rights necessary to
satisfy the requirement of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
WAWS is identical to the domain name <waws.com>. The only difference between the two is
the addition to the domain name of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “com”
after the letters
waws. The top
level of the domain name such as “com” does not affect the domain name for the
purpose of determining whether it is identical
or confusingly similar. See
Pomellato S. p. A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000); Rollerblade,
Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainant prevails under Policy ¶
4(a)(i).
Complainant has the burden of proving
that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain
name, <waws.com>. See Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). However, both the Policy and the decision of
domain dispute panels recognize the difficulty a complainant may have in
presenting proof
on this issue. The
Policy offers to Respondent methods by which the Respondent can demonstrate his
rights to and legitimate interests in the domain
name in responding to a
complaint. See Policy ¶ 4(c).
Policy ¶ 4(c) does not shift the burden of proof to
respondent. It shifts the burden of
going forward with the evidence to respondent.
Respondent is given the responsibility of going forward with the
evidence or if he does not, to suffer any adverse inferences which
may
legitimately be drawn from such failure to go forward under the provisions of
Policy ¶ 4(c).
In deciding the case of Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
the Panel considered the meaning and requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and
Policy ¶ 4(c). That Panel developed the
following rule: “When a complainant has
asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the domain name, it is incumbent
upon the respondent to come forward with
concrete evidence rebutting this assertion.
This information is uniquely within the knowledge and control of the
respondent. Failure of a respondent to
come forward with such evidence is tantamount to admitting the truth of
complainant’s assertions in this
regard.”
See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21,
2000).
Respondent in this dispute comes forward
with no evidence of any sort that might illustrate his rights and legitimate
interests in
the domain name, <waws.com>.
It cannot be inferred that linking the
domain name <waws.com> to a website showing explicit sexual
materials is a bona fide offering of services to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See
MatchNet plc. V. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000). Nor can it be inferred that such
circumstances constitute a noncommercial or fair use of the domain name to
satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA96466
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001).
No evidence is presented to suggest that
Respondent has ever been commonly known by the domain name so as to satisfy
Policy ¶ (4)(c)(ii). No inference can
be made except that Respondent has been known as Aaron Scovil or Traffic Secret
LLC. Respondent cannot prevail under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v.
Burbridge, FA96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001), which establishes a
requirement that a showing be made that one has been commonly known by
the
domain name prior to registration of the domain name in order for respondent to
prevail.
Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The burden is placed upon Complainant to
prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. See
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant may
proceed to show bad faith by any of the means specifically set out in Policy ¶
4(b) or any other method that will
show the Panel proof of circumstances deemed
sufficient to establish Respondent’s bad faith.
Complainant contends that Respondent is
not making fair use of the domain name in that it is not using the domain name
as part of
a legitimate business and that Respondent has acquired the domain
name solely for the purpose of commercial gain by misleadingly
capturing
consumers of the mark at issue and diverting unsuspecting consumers of
Complainant’s services to Respondent’s pornography
site.
The manner in which a domain name is used
from the date of registration until the commencement of a domain name dispute
is a matter
open to proof. Whether a
domain name is being used or has been used in bad faith is a matter that is
open to examination. Whether a domain
name was registered in bad faith can, under certain circumstances, be a
difficult issue upon which to present proof.
It relates to the mental state of the registrant. When a registrant can be shown to know of a
complainant’s mark, or admits that he knew of complainant’s mark at the time of
registration,
the registrant’s intention could be ascertained. See Hunton
& Williams v. American Distribution Systems, Inc. D2000-0501 (WIPO Aug.
1, 2000); Lord, Bissell & Brook v. DefaultDate.com, FA108064 (Nat.
Arb. Forum May 23, 2002); The New York Times Company v. New York Internet
Services, D2000-1072 (WIPO Dec. 3, 2000).
Where a complainant’s mark is so famous that a respondent cannot be
permitted to claim ignorance of its existence, the registrant’s
intention can
be inferred from the circumstances. See Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Stephen
Nurwono, FA112532 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 20, 2002); Samsonite Corp. v.
Colony Holdings, FA94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000); Victoria’s
Secret v. Hardin, FA96694 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001).
But in a factual situation such as the
present case where the trademark is not proved to be so famous as to raise an
inference that
Respondent must have known of its existence, Complainant can
show no proof of Respondent’s actual knowledge of the mark, and Respondent
denies knowledge of the mark, the question is presented as to how bad faith
registration is to be proved. Is a
simple denial of bad faith at the time of registration adequate to defeat
Complainant’s case?
There is no doubt that the domain name <waws.com>
is presently being used to direct Internet users to a website displaying
explicit sexual content. That is clear
evidence of bad faith use of the domain name. See Geocities v.
Geocities.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000); MatchNet plc. v. MAC
Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000).
By using the domain name, Respondent is
intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his
website by
creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to
the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the
website. That use
is proscribed by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent could have stated how he came
to choose the domain name. He could
have explained what his initial intention was for the use of the domain
name. This information is uniquely
within the knowledge of Respondent and unavailable to Complainant in a proceeding
such as this one. The only use of the
domain name shown by the evidence is bad faith use. Under the circumstances, the Panel must assume, without some
evidence to the contrary, that Respondent registered the domain name
for the
purpose of using it in bad faith. That
intention constitutes bad faith registration.
The Panel does not find that the
registration in bad faith policy set out in Paragraph 4(a)(iii) necessarily
requires bad faith to
be directed to any particular person or organization. To
find otherwise would permit the continued exposure of Internet users seeking
Complainant’s call letters to be subjected to explicit sexual displays, thus
tarnishing Complainant’s reputation.
The Policy is designed to avoid such conditions.
The existing situation prevents
Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. See
Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant prevails under Policy ¶
4(a)(iii).
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <waws.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr. Panelist
Dated: May 23, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/520.html