Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
DECISION
Qwest
Communications International Inc. v. Lorna Kang
Claim
Number: FA0305000158161
PARTIES
Complainant is Qwest Communications International, Inc., Denver, CO, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Anthony J. Malutta, of
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP. Respondent is Lorna Kang, Telok Intan Perak, MALAYSIA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <wwwqwest.com>,
registered with Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com.
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.
Hon.
Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on May 19, 2003; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint
on May 23, 2003.
On
May 23, 2003, Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/A Dotregistrar.Com confirmed by e-mail to
the Forum that the domain name <wwwqwest.com>
is registered with Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Iholdings.Com,
Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.Com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.Com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.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
May 28, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
June 17, 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@ wwwqwest.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 25, 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.
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 <wwwqwest.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s QWEST mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <wwwqwest.com>
domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwqwest.com> domain name in bad
faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Qwest
Communications International Inc., holds rights in the QWEST mark. Complainant has been operating under the
QWEST name and mark in the United States since at least as early as 1981. Complainant holds several registrations for
the QWEST mark in the United States (e.g.,
U.S. Reg. No. 1,966,694, registered on April 9, 1996). In addition, Complainant owns more than 385
active QWEST trademark applications and registrations in more than 48
countries.
Complainant offers a
wide range of telecommunication goods and services around the world. Complainant serves more than 30 million
customers in the United States and abroad, completing over 240 million phone
calls and carries
over 600 million emails daily in its local phone service
area.
Respondent, Lorna
Kang, registered the <wwwqwest.com>
domain name on November 28, 2002 and is not licensed or authorized to use
Complainant’s QWEST mark for any purpose.
Respondent links the disputed domain name to the
<ownbox.com/treasure/search.html> domain name which subjects consumers to
a
series of advertisements that purport to offer credit card services, music
downloading, green cards, and Complainant’s competitor’s
wireless telephone and
service plans. There are at least seven
prior decisions against Respondent for registering and using domain names that
correspond with famous brands.
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 QWEST mark through registration with the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office and subsequent
continuous use of the mark in commerce. See
The Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Brian Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that
they are inherently
distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning”); see also Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA
95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark
where its use was continuous and ongoing).
Respondent’s <wwwqwest.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s QWEST mark. The only difference is that Respondent added “www” to
Complainant’s mark. Such difference is
insufficient to differentiate Respondent’s <wwwqwest.com> domain name from Complainant’s QWEST mark. Therefore, Complainant has established that
the <wwwqwest.com> domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QWEST mark. See Bank of Am. Corp. v.
InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that
Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar
to
Complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage
of a typing error (eliminating the period between
the www and the domain name)
that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see alsoMarie Claire Album v. Geoffrey Blakely, D2002-1015 (WIPO
Dec. 23, 2002) (holding that the letters "www" are not distinct in
the "Internet world" and
thus Respondent 's
<wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's
MARIE CLAIRE trademark).
Accordingly, the Panel
finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent is using
the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a series of
advertisements that are all unrelated to Complainant’s
QWEST mark. The advertisements at Respondent’s domain
name offer credit card services, music downloading and green cards, and
Complainant’s competitor’s
wireless telephone and service plans. Respondent is taking advantage of
Complainant’s mark by diverting Internet users to such commercial domain names
for its own financial
gain. Respondent
is also tarnishing Complainant’s mark by subjecting Internet users to a series
of intrusive and unsolicited ads.
Respondent’s redirection from the <wwwqwest.com> domain name to advertising websites that are
unrelated to Complainant does not establish rights or legitimate interests in
the
domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See FAO Schwarz v. Zuccarini, FA 95828 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the
domain names <faoscwartz.com>, <foaschwartz.com>,
<faoshwartz.com>, and <faoswartz.com> where Respondent was using
these domain names to link to an advertising website);
see also AltaVista v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000)
(finding that use of the domain name to direct users to other, unconnected
websites does not constitute
a legitimate interest in the domain name).
Respondent, Lorna
Kang, is not “commonly known” by the disputed domain name. Both the name given in the WHOIS contact
information for the disputed domain name and the fame surrounding Complainant’s
use of the
QWEST mark support the reasonable inference that Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed domain name.
In addition, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the <wwwqwest.com> domain name. Furthermore, there is no evidence before the
Panel to the contrary. Thus, it is
reasonable for the Panel to infer 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 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").
Accordingly, the Panel
finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent registered
and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). Respondent creates a
likelihood of confusion as to the source of sponsorship of Respondent’s website
in the minds of Internet users
when Respondent uses Complainant’s famous QWEST
mark to trap Internet users who misspell Complainant’s domain name and then
redirects
them to Respondent’s website where they are subjected to various
pop-up advertisements. The content
displayed on the re-directed website creates a presumption that Respondent is
commercially profiting from the unauthorized
use of Complainant’s QWEST mark in
the <wwwqwest.com> domain
name. Additionally, evidence reveals
that Respondent has a history of registering confusingly similar variations of
famous marks in domain
names in order to commercially benefit. This Policy was intended to remedy
infringement by habitual typosquatters, like Respondent. See
ESPN, Inc. v. Ballerini, FA 95410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000) (finding
bad faith where the Respondent linked the domain name to another website
<iwin.com>,
presumably receiving a portion of the advertising revenue
from the site by directing Internet traffic there, thus using a domain
name to
attract Internet users for commercial gain); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l
Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003)
(“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to
intercept and siphon off
traffic from its intended destination, by preying on
Internauts who make common typing errors.
Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad
faith.”).
The Panel finds that
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been 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 <wwwqwest.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent
to Complainant.
Hon.
Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice,
Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: July 8, 2003