Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Party Night
Inc. c/o Peter Carrington
Claim
Number: FA0304000155908
Complainant is
The Toronto-Dominion Bank, Toronto, ON, CA (“Complainant”) represented
by Peter W. Choe, of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP. Respondent is
Party Night, Inc. c/o Peter Carrington, Amsterdam, NL (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <tdcanadatrus.com> and <tdcanadaturst.com>,
registered with Key-Systems Gmbh.
The
undersigned certifies that he or 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 April 29, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 30, 2003.
On
April 30, 2003, Key-Systems Gmbh confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <tdcanadatrus.com> and <tdcanadaturst.com>
are registered with Key-Systems Gmbh and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the names. Key-Systems Gmbh has verified that
Respondent is bound
by the Key-Systems Gmbh 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 2, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
May 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@tdcanadatrus.com and postmaster@tdcanadaturst.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
June 2, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <tdcanadatrus.com>
and <tdcanadaturst.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s TD CANADA TRUST family of registered marks and TD CANADA TRUST
common law mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <tdcanadatrus.com> and <tdcanadaturst.com>
domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <tdcanadatrus.com>
and <tdcanadaturst.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant, The
Toronto-Dominion Bank, holds many Canadian registrations for various marks in
its TD CANADA TRUST family, including
the TD TRUST mark (Reg. No. TMA427238,
registered with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) on May 13,
1994) and the
CANADA TRUST mark (Reg. No. TMA409300, registered with the CIPO
on March 12, 1993). Complainant is one of Canada’s largest financial
institutions. Under the registered TD CANADA TRUST family of marks, Complainant
provides, inter alia, interactive online banking services; banking, real
estate, insurance, securities, computerized data processing and trust company
services; automobile and travel services.
In addition to
its registered marks, Complainant has carried on its banking business using a
composite mark styled as TD CANADA TRUST
since 2001. Since its first use of the
TD CANADA TRUST composite mark, Complainant has spent over $181,543,000 in
advertising, generating
billions of dollars in revenues under the mark. In
addition to representing itself to the public under this mark, Complainant has
registered the <tdcanadatrust.com> domain name, from which all its online
services are directed.
Respondent,
Party Night Inc. c/o Peter Carrington, registered the <tdcanadatrus.com>
and <tdcanadaturst.com> domain names on September 28, 2002, and is
not licensed or authorized to use any of Complainant’s marks for any purpose.
Respondent
uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the
“Hanky-Panky-College,” an adult-oriented website at http://amaturevideos.nl/hanky-panky-party.html.
Internet users who are redirected to the <amaturevideos.nl> domain name
are also subjected to pop-up 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 TD CANADA TRUST family of marks through proof of
registration of those marks with the CIPO.
Complainant has also established
common law rights in the TD CANADA TRUST mark through widespread use of the
mark in commerce and
evidence of secondary meaning associated with the mark.
Both Complainant’s family of registered marks and Complainant’s common law
TD
CANADA TRUST mark are sufficient to grant standing for Complainant to bring a
claim under the UDRP, despite the fact that Complainant
and Respondent are
domiciled in different countries. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7,
2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in
the country in which Respondent
operates.
It is sufficient that Complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Respondent’s <tdcanadatrus.com>
and <tdcanadaturst.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TD CANADA TRUST mark. One
of the disputed domain names deletes a letter from Complainant’s mark, while
the other
transposes two letters. In both instances, Respondent registered
domain names that prey upon spelling errors by Internet users attempting
to
reach Complainant’s <tdcanadatrust.com> domain name, and the end result
is two domain names that are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s mark. See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev,
D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001)
(finding that the domain names <tdwatergouse.com> and
<dwaterhouse.com> are virtually identical to Complainant’s TD WATERHOUSE
name and mark); see also Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding
<googel.com> to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and
noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark
capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity,
as the result reflects a
very probable typographical error”).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <tdcanadatrus.com> and <tdcanadaturst.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s TD CANADA TRUST mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant is
able to meet its burden of proving that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <tdcanadatrus.com> and <tdcanadaturst.com>
domain names by demonstrating that Respondent does not qualify for the
three “safe harbors” provided for domain name registrants in Policy ¶¶
4(c)(i)-(iii).
Such a showing shifts Complainant’s burden to Respondent, who
must come forward with evidence rebutting Complainant’s allegations
in order to
prevail on this element. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding where Complainant has asserted that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
with respect to the domain
name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence
rebutting this assertion because
this information is “uniquely within the
knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v.
Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant
asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with
respect to
the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that
substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name).
Neither
Respondent’s <tdcanadatrus.com> nor <tdcanadaturst.com>
domain names spell a phrase with any significance outside of their similarity
to Complainant’s TD CANADA TRUST mark and domain name.
Both disputed domain
names capitalize on spelling errors to direct Internet users attempting to
reach Complainant’s <tdcanadatrust.com>
domain name to an adult-oriented
website instead of their intended destination. Such use of a domain name does
not evidence a bona
fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vapor
Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27,
2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse
and divert Internet
traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name); 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
record before the Panel demonstrates that Respondent is not “commonly known by
“ either of the disputed domain names. Respondent,
Party Night c/o Peter
Carrington, has not rebutted Complainant’s assertions and evidence on this
matter, and the Panel thus finds
that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to
Respondent. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS
information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly
known by’ the disputed domain
name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see
also MRA Holding, LLC
v. Costnet, FA 140454
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2003) (noting that “the disputed domain name does not even correctly
spell a cognizable phrase” in finding that Respondent was not “commonly known
by”
the name GIRLS GON WILD or <girlsgonwild.com>).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
<tdcanadatrus.com> and <tdcanadaturst.com> domain
names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <tdcanadatrus.com> and <tdcanadaturst.com>
domain names are simple misspellings of Complainant’s TD CANADA TRUST mark and
Complainant’s <tdcanadatrust.com> domain name. In registering these misspellings of Complainant’s mark,
Respondent created a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship
of
Respondent’s website in the minds of Internet users who inadvertently
misspelled Complainant’s domain name while browsing the
web. Respondent
presumably created this likelihood of confusion for commercial gain via pop-up
advertisements and referral fees from
an adult-oriented website. This is
evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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); see also 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)).
The Panel thus
finds that Respondent registered and used the <tdcanadatrus.com>
and <tdcanadaturst.com> domain names in bad faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <tdcanadatrus.com> and <tdcanadaturst.com>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: June 5, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/575.html