Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities v. Host Master
Claim
Number: FA0307000167910
Complainants are Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities,
Sunnyvale, CA (“Complainant”) represented by David M. Kelly of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett &
Dunner LLP. Respondent is Host Master, Wakefield, RI
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <bgeocities.com>, <eaahoo.com>,
<fgeocities.com>, <geocit5ies.com>, <geocit6ies.com>,
<geocit8es.com>, <geocit9es.com>, <geocitfies.com>,
<geocitgies.com>, <geociti3s.com>, <geociti4s.com>,
<geociti8es.com>, <geociti9es.com>, <geocitids.com>,
<geocitie3s.com>, <geocitiee.com>, <geocitiefs.com>,
<geocitiesw.com>, <geocitiesx.com>, <geocitiesz.com>,
<geocitiex.com>, <geocitifs.com>, <geocitijes.com>,
<geocitikes.com>, <geocitioes.com>, <geocitiss.com>,
<geocitiues.com>, <geocitjes.com>, <geocitkes.com>,
<geocitries.com>, <yah0oo.com> and <yaho0o.com>,
registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known
conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainants
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on July 2, 2003; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint
on July 3, 2003.
On
July 7, 2003, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <bgeocities.com>, <eaahoo.com>, <fgeocities.com>,
<geocit5ies.com>, <geocit6ies.com>, <geocit8es.com>,
<geocit9es.com>, <geocitfies.com>, <geocitgies.com>,
<geociti3s.com>, <geociti4s.com>, <geociti8es.com>,
<geociti9es.com>, <geocitids.com>, <geocitie3s.com>,
<geocitiee.com>, <geocitiefs.com>, <geocitiesw.com>,
<geocitiesx.com>, <geocitiesz.com>, <geocitiex.com>,
<geocitifs.com>, <geocitijes.com>, <geocitikes.com>,
<geocitioes.com>, <geocitiss.com>, <geocitiues.com>,
<geocitjes.com>, <geocitkes.com>, <geocitries.com>,
<yah0oo.com> and <yaho0o.com> are registered with Go
Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the
names. Go Daddy Software, Inc. verified
that Respondent is bound by the Go
Daddy Software, Inc. registration agreement and 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@bgeocities.com, postmaster@eaahoo.com, postmaster@fgeocities.com,
postmaster@geocit5ies.com, postmaster@geocit6ies.com,
postmaster@geocit8es.com,
postmaster@geocit9es.com, postmaster@geocitfies.com, postmaster@geocitgies.com,
postmaster@geociti3s.com,
postmaster@geociti4s.com, postmaster@geociti8es.com, postmaster@geociti9es.com,
postmaster@geocitids.com, postmaster@geocitie3s.com,
postmaster@geocitiee.com, postmaster@geocitiefs.com,
postmaster@geocitiesw.com, postmaster@geocitiesx.com, postmaster@geocitiesz.com,
postmaster@geocitiex.com, postmaster@geocitifs.com, postmaster@geocitijes.com, postmaster@geocitikes.com,
postmaster@geocitioes.com,
postmaster@geocitiss.com, postmaster@geocitiues.com,
postmaster@geocitjes.com, postmaster@geocitkes.com, postmaster@geocitries.com,
postmaster@yah0oo.com
and postmaster@yaho0o.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
August 1, 2003, pursuant to Complainants' request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon.
Carolyn Marks Johnson 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.
Complainants
request that the <yah0oo.com>, <yaho0o.com> and <eahoo.com>
domain names be transferred from Respondent to Yahoo!, Inc., and the
remaining twenty-nine (29) domain names be transferred to GeoCities,
a
subsidiary of Yahoo! Inc.
A. Complainants make the following assertions:
1. The domain names registered by
Respondent, <bgeocities.com>, <eaahoo.com>, <fgeocities.com>,
<geocit5ies.com>, <geocit6ies.com>, <geocit8es.com>,
<geocit9es.com>, <geocitfies.com>, <geocitgies.com>,
<geociti3s.com>, <geociti4s.com>, <geociti8es.com>,
<geociti9es.com>, <geocitids.com>, <geocitie3s.com>,
<geocitiee.com>, <geocitiefs.com>, <geocitiesw.com>,
<geocitiesx.com>, <geocitiesz.com>, <geocitiex.com>,
<geocitifs.com>, <geocitijes.com>, <geocitikes.com>,
<geocitioes.com>, <geocitiss.com>, <geocitiues.com>,
<geocitjes.com>, <geocitkes.com>, <geocitries.com>,
<yah0oo.com> and <yaho0o.com>, are confusingly similar
to Complainants’ YAHOO! and GEOCITIES marks.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used each of
the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this
proceeding.
The first named
Complainant, Yahoo! Inc., is an Internet communications, media and commerce
company that provides Internet based searching,
directory, information,
communication and shopping services to Internet users. With an estimated value
of approximately $3.8 billion,
Complainant Yahoo! Inc., has used the YAHOO!
mark since 1994 to denote the above-mentioned services, first registering the
mark May
25, 1995, on the Prinicpal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (U.S. Reg. No. 2,273,128). This Complainant also operates
a website
utilizing the YAHOO! mark at the <yahoo.com> domain name.
GeoCities, the
second named Complainant, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Yahoo! Inc. and is
the owner of the GEOCITIES mark (e.g., U.S. Reg. No. 2,214,762,
registered on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on
December 30, 1997). Geocities
uses this mark in connection with providing
personal home pages on the Internet, a service it has performed since February
of 1995.
This Complainant also operates a website, at the <geocities.com>
domain name, which received over 1.7 billion page views in
March of 2003, over
40 million of those from Internet users registered with Complainants’ business.
Respondent, Host
Master, registered the <yah0oo.com> and <yaho0o.com>
domain names October 1 and September 22, 2002, respectively, and the remainder
of the disputed domain names on September 27, 2002.
Respondent uses each of the
disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to the <typ0s.com>
domain name, which openly displays
the slogan: “Oops! Looks like you mistyped
something!” and which offers web directory services while displaying
adult-oriented banner
advertisements. Each domain name also generates an
adult-oriented pop-up advertisement for the <hustler.com> domain name.
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 Complainants'
undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
will draw such inferences as the Panel considers
appropriate pursuant to
paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a)
of the Policy requires that a Complainants 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
Complainants
have 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.
Complainants
established in this proceeding that they have rights in the YAHOO! and
GEOCITIES marks through registration of the marks
on the Principal Register of
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as by widespread use of the marks
in commerce.
The <yah0oo.com>
and <yaho0o.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainants’ YAHOO! mark. Both are identical to Complainants’ YAHOO! mark but
for the addition
of the numeral “0” within the mark. This slight alteration is
insufficient to defeat analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source, D2000-0362 (WIPO June 19, 2000)
(finding the domain name <0xygen.com>, with zero in place of letter “O,”
“appears calculated
to trade on Complainant’s name by exploiting likely
mistakes by users when entering the url address”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp.,
FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that <oicq.net> and
<oicq.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
mark, ICQ).
Likewise, the
other disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainants’
GEOCITIES mark. Many duplicate the above mentioned
domain names in that they
include a numeral within Complainants’ mark. The other disputed domain names
are all misspellings of the
GEOCITIES mark, which nevertheless remain
confusingly similar to the mark itself. 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 <hewlitpackard.com>
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s HEWLETT-PACKARD
mark).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainants’ marks under Policy
¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainants
established in this proceeding that they have rights to and legitimate
interests in the domain names at issue. They urge
that Respondent uses each of
the disputed domain names in exactly the same fashion, to redirect Internet
users to a domain name,
which prides itself on attracting Internet users who
have mistyped Complainants’ marks and domain name addresses. After being
misdirected,
these Internet users are presented with a search engine and web
directory services that compete directly with Complainants’ services
offered
under its YAHOO! mark. Using typographical alterations of Complainants’ marks,
which merely capitalizes on the goodwill Complainants
have built up around
their famous marks, for the purpose of competing with Complainants is not a
“bona fide” offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it
is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names under Policy
¶ 4(c)(iii).
Without any evidence from Respondent to rebut these findings, the
Panel holds that Respondent is unable to avail itself of these
two “safe
harbor” provisions of the Policy. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master a/k/a MedGo,
FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s use of a
confusingly similar domain name to operate a pay-per-click
search engine, in
competition with Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or
services); see also Geoffrey, Inc. v. Toyrus.com, FA 150406 (Nat. Arb.
Forum April 25, 2003) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate
interests in a domain name that
it used to redirect Internet users to an
Internet directory website that featured numerous pop-up advertisements for
commercial goods
and sexually explicit websites).
Given the fame of Complainants’ registered YAHOO! and GEOCITIES marks, the
Panel is unwilling to find that Respondent is “commonly
known by” any of the
disputed domain names. The Panel holds
that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not act to benefit Respondent under these facts. See
Foot Locker Retail, Inc. v. Gibson, FA 139693 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 4,
2003) (stating that “[d]ue to the fame of Complainant’s FOOT LOCKER family of marks…and the
fact that Respondent’s WHOIS information reveals its name to be
“Bruce Gibson,”
the Panel infers that Respondent was not “commonly known by” any of the
disputed domain names prior to their registration,
and concludes that Policy ¶
4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent”); see also Nike,
Inc. v. B. B. de Boer,
D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who
may show a right or
legitimate interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's distinct and
famous NIKE trademark).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant
alleges that Respondent registered and used the domain names in issue in bad
faith. The Panel finds that Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith by setting up a
commercial enterprise on
the Internet that is dedicated to “typosquatting.” By
using them for this purpose, Respondent is using each of the domain names in
issue in bad faith. The fact that Respondent chose to register a series of
domain names that were confusingly similar to Complainants’
famous YAHOO! and
GEOCITIES marks is evidence that the domain names were registered in bad faith.
As the UDRP was designed to combat
not only cybersquatters but also blatant
typosquatters, the Panel finds that Complainant’s met the burden with respect
to Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore,
FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered
and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because
Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet
users to its commercial website);
see also Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net,
D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s registration of an
infringing domain name to redirect Internet users
to banner advertisements
constituted bad faith use of the domain name).
The Panel thus
finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed 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 <bgeocities.com>, <fgeocities.com>,
<geocit5ies.com>, <geocit6ies.com>, <geocit8es.com>,
<geocit9es.com>, <geocitfies.com>, <geocitgies.com>,
<geociti3s.com>, <geociti4s.com>, <geociti8es.com>,
<geociti9es.com>, <geocitids.com>, <geocitie3s.com>,
<geocitiee.com>, <geocitiefs.com>, <geocitiesw.com>,
<geocitiesx.com>, <geocitiesz.com>, <geocitiex.com>,
<geocitifs.com>, <geocitijes.com>, <geocitikes.com>,
<geocitioes.com>, <geocitiss.com>, <geocitiues.com>,
<geocitjes.com>, <geocitkes.com> and <geocitries.com>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant GeoCities, a
subsidiary of Yahoo! Inc., and the <yah0oo.com>, <yaho0o.com>
and <eaahoo.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant, Yahoo! Inc.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: August 15, 2003.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/847.html