Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc.
a/k/a Peter Carrington
Claim
Number: FA0306000165155
Complainant is LTD Commodities LLC, Bannockburn, IL
(“Complainant”) represented by Irwin C.
Alter, of Alter and Weiss. Respondent is Party Night, Inc. a/k/a Peter Carrington, Amsterdam,
Netherlands (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>
and <ltdcommodaties.com>, registered with Key-Systems Gmbh.
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.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on June 26, 2003; the Forum
received a hard copy of the
Complaint on June 30, 2003.
On
July 4, 2003, Key-Systems Gmbh confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
names <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com> and
<ltdcommodaties.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
July 8, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
July 28, 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@ltdcommadities.com, postmaster@ltdcommmodities.com,
and postmaster@ltdcommodaties.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
July 31, 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.
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 <ltdcommadities.com>,
<ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain
names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s LTD COMMODITIES mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>
and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <ltdcommadities.com>,
<ltdcommmodities.com> and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain
names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Since 1963,
Complainant, formally known as LTD Commodities, Inc., has been in the field of
catalog mail order distributorships for
general merchandise such as toys,
housewares, and gifts. Complainant registered
the <ltdcommodities.com> domain name and has operated it in conjunction
with its business since May 31,
1996.
Complainant’s LTD COMMODITIES mark has been used in commerce since 1963
and was registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) on
November 28, 2000 (Reg. No. 2409188).
Also, Complainant has several pending service marks for LTD COMMODITIES
LLC with the USPTO (Serial Nos. 78194891, 78194821 and 78194903).
Respondent
registered the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>
and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names between July 23 and August
3, 2002. Respondent’s disputed domain
names redirect Internet users to an adult oriented website. During the redirection, Internet users are
“mousetrapped” into viewing a series of 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 LTD COMMODITIES mark through use of the mark in
commerce and by registering it with the
USPTO.
Respondent’s <ltdcommadities.com>,
<ltdcommmodities.com> and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain
names constitute confusingly similar domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
because they are mere misspellings of Complainant’s
mark. See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000)
(finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent
does not
create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, FA
94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2000) (finding the domain name
<hewlitpackard.com> to be identical or confusingly similar
to
Complainant’s HEWLETT-PACKARD mark).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Due to Respondent’s
failure to contest the allegations of the Complaint, the Panel presumes that
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain names
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M
Virtual Reality, Inc., AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where no such right or interest was immediately
apparent to the Panel and Respondent did not come forward to suggest any right
or interest it may have possessed); see also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June
20, 2000) (“By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any
circumstance which could demonstrate,
pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name”).
Furthermore, the
WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists Respondent, Peter
Carrington a/k/a Party Night, Inc., as the
registrant; however, it fails to
establish Respondent as one commonly known by any of the disputed domain
names. Also, Respondent is not
authorized or licensed to register or use domain names incorporating
Complainant’s mark and is not affiliated
with Complainant. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii),
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
names. See Tercent, Inc.
v. 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 Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant;
(2) Complainant’s prior
rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is
not commonly known by the
domain name in question).
In addition,
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to an
adult oriented website. Respondent’s
use 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 Isleworth Land Co. v.
Lost In Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (finding that
Respondent’s use of its domain name to link unsuspecting Internet
traffic to an adult orientated website, containing images of scantily clad
women in provocative
poses, did not constitute a connection with a bona fide
offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use); 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).
Moreover,
Respondent has engaged in the practice of “typosquatting.” Respondent intentionally registered the
disputed domain names, which are misspellings of Complainant’s mark, with the
purpose of redirecting
Internet users who attempt to access Complainant’s
website but misspell Complainant’s domain name. Respondent’s “typosquatting” is evidence that Respondent lacks
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June
7, 2000) (finding that fair use does not apply where the domain names are
misspellings of Complainant's mark);
see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini,
D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … as a means of redirecting
consumers against their will to another site, does not
qualify as a bona fide
offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at
that site.”).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel infers
that Respondent either knew or should have known of Complainant’s rights in the
LTD COMMODITIES mark because Complainant’s
mark has been registered on the
Principal Register of the USPTO and has been used in commerce since as early as
1963. Respondent’s
registration of the disputed domain names despite its
knowledge of Complainant’s rights is evidence of bad faith registration
pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Victoria’s Cyber Secret Ltd. P’ship v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1349
(S.D.Fla. 2001) (noting that “a Principal Register registration [of a trademark
or service mark] is constructive
notice of a claim of ownership so as to
eliminate any defense of good faith adoption” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1072); see
also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17,
2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive
knowledge of a commonly
known mark at the time of registration).
In addition,
Respondent’s disputed domain names tarnish Complainant’s mark because they are
confusingly similar to the LTD COMMODITIES
mark and redirect Internet users to
an adult oriented website. Respondent’s
use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Party
Night Inc. a/k/a Peter Carrington, FA 144647 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18,
2003) (finding that Respondent’s tarnishing use of
the disputed domain names to redirect
Internet users to adult-oriented websites was evidence that the domain names
were being used in bad faith); see also Six Continents Hotels,
Inc. v. Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO Mar. 4, 2003) (stating that “whatever the
motivation of Respondent, the diversion of the domain name to a pornographic
site is itself certainly consistent with the finding that the Domain Name was
registered and is being used in bad faith”).
Finally,
Respondent has engaged in the practice of “typosquatting.” Respondent’s conduct is evidence of bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball
Leagues, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003)
(“Typosquatting, however, 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”); see also Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Elias Skander d/b/a Web
Registration Service, FA 135598 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating
that “[b]y registering the “typosquatted” domain name in [Complainant’s]
affiliate
program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s]
protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” evidence of bad
faith
registration and use).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>
and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
August 14, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/800.html