Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
The Sports Authority Michigan Inc. v.
villagewebsmith a/k/a Russell Dickson
Claim
Number: FA0307000175291
Complainant is The Sports Authority Michigan Inc.,
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, (“Complainant”) represented by Robert S. Gurwin, of Rader Fishman & Grauer PLLC. Respondent is villagewebsmith a/k/a Russell Dickson, North Port, NY, (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <sportsawthority.com> and <thesportsawthority.com>,
registered with Go Daddy Software.
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 July 29, 2003; the Forum
received a hard copy of the
Complaint on July 30, 2003.
On
July 30, 2003, Go Daddy Software confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <sportsawthority.com> and <thesportsawthority.com>
are registered with Go Daddy Software and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the names. Go Daddy Software has verified
that Respondent is
bound by the Go Daddy Software 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 31, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding
(the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of August 20,
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@sportsawthority.com and postmaster@thesportsawthority.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 28, 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 <sportsawthority.com>
and <thesportsawthority.com> domain names are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s SPORTS AUTHORITY and THE SPORTS AUTHORITY marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <sportsawthority.com> and <thesportsawthority.com>
domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <sportsawthority.com>
and <thesportsawthority.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant is
the largest national full-line sporting goods retailer in the U.S. and
currently operates 201 stores in the U.S.
Complainant holds registrations for the SPORTS AUTHORITY and THE SPORTS
AUTHORITY marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”), which were
registered on February 28, 1989 and March 7, 1989 respectively (Reg. Nos.
1,527,526 and 1,529,035). Complainant
has used both the SPORTS AUTHORITY and THE SPORTS AUTHORITY marks in commerce
since May 19, 1988. Complainant
registered the <thesportsauthority.com> and <sportsauthority.com>
domain names on September 29, 1997 and July
27, 1995 respectively and uses them
in conjunction with Complainant’s business.
Complainant’s <thesportsauthority.com> website was named the 2nd
overall shopping site on the Internet by a study conducted by Shelley Taylor
& Associates.
Respondent
registered the <sportsawthority.com> and <thesportsawthority.com>
domain names on April 4, 2003 and uses them to redirect Internet users to
Complainant’s <thesportsauthority.com> website. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to participate in
Complainant’s affiliate program, which pays commissions to domain name
registrants for sales made by redirecting Internet users to Complainant’s
commercial website.
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 SPORTS AUTHORITY and THE SPORTS AUTHORITY marks
through their use in commerce and registration
with the USPTO.
Also,
Respondent’s <sportsawthority.com> and <thesportsawthority.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPORTS AUTHORITY and THE
SPORTS AUTHORITY marks because the disputed domain
names merely replace the “u”
in “AUTHORITY” with a “w.” See 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); see also 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).
In addition,
Respondent’s <sportsawthority.com> and <thesportsawthority.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because the
disputed domain names are phonetically similar to the SPORTS
AUTHORITY and THE
SPORTS AUTHORITY marks. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Cupcake City, FA
93562 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 7, 2000) (finding that a domain name which is
phonetically identical to Complainant’s mark satisfies
¶ 4(a)(i) of the
Policy); see also VeriSign Inc. v.
VeneSign C.A., D2000-0303 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the
pronunciation and spelling between the domain name <venesign.com> and
Complainant’s
mark, VERISIGN, are so close that confusion can arise in the mind
of the consumer).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent has
failed to contest the allegations of the Complaint; therefore the Panel may
presume that Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency
Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to
respond can be construed as an admission that they have no
legitimate interest
in the domain names); see also 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).
Furthermore, the
record fails to establish that Respondent is authorized or licensed to register
or use domain names that incorporate
Complainant’s marks. The WHOIS information for the disputed
domain names lists Respondent, villagewebsmith, as the registrant of the domain
names but fails
to establish Respondent as one commonly known by the disputed
domain names or by the SPORTS AUTHORITY mark or the THE SPORTS AUTHORITY
mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes
that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
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 Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly
known by the mark and
never applied for a license or permission from
Complainant to use the trademarked name).
In
addition, Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain names in
Complainant’s affiliate program is evidence that Respondent
has attempted to
commercially benefit from Internet users who misspell Complainant’s domain
names. Complainant has not given
Respondent permission to use the disputed domain names in Complainant’s
affiliate program. Respondent’s
disputed domain names take advantage of a minor misspelling of Complainant’s
domain names and Respondent profits from
this minor mistake by receiving a
commission for sales made via redirecting Internet users to Complainant’s
commercial website. Respondent’s
attempt to commercially benefit from Internet users who misspell Complainant’s
domain names is evidence that Respondent
is not using the disputed domain names
for 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 Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Domhold
Co., a/k/a D'Vaul L., FA 135011 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (finding
that registering a domain name which differs by one letter from Complainant’s
commercial website, and using that domain name to redirect Internet consumers
to Complainant’s website as a part of Complainant’s
affiliate program is not a
bona fide offering of goods or services nor a noncommercial use of the domain
name); see also Sports Auth.
Mich., Inc. v. Jablome, FA 124861 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (as a member of Complainant’s affiliate program, by
registering the domain name that reflects a misspelling of Complainant’s mark,
Respondent intended to profit off the domain name at Complainant’s expense,
thereby evidencing a lack of rights and legitimate interests
in the domain name
under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
The
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
It can be
inferred that Respondent had either actual or constructive knowledge of
Complainant’s marks because Complainant’s marks
are known throughout the U.S.,
the marks have been registered with the USPTO, and the disputed domain names
were used to participate
in Complainant’s affiliate program. See Digi Int’l, Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA
124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption
of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should
have been aware of
Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Orange
Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002)
(“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO,
a status
that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use
the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof”).
Furthermore,
Respondent’s unauthorized use of the disputed domain names in Complainant’s
affiliate program is evidence that Respondent
registered and used the disputed
domain names in bad faith because Respondent merely takes advantage of Internet
users who intend
to access Complainant’s commercial websites but who misspell
Complainant’s domain names. Due to the
probable typographical error, Respondent receives a commission for sales made
via redirecting Internet users to Complainant’s
commercial websites. See Deluxe
Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding Respondent registered and used the
<deluxeform.com> domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)
by redirecting its users to Complainant’s <deluxeforms.com> domain name,
thus receiving
a commission from Complainant through its affiliate program); see
also Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Internet Hosting, FA 124516
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (“Redirecting Internet users attempting to reach
a complainant’s website in order to gain
a profit off of a complainant is one
example of bad faith use and registration under the Policy”).
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 <sportsawthority.com> and <thesportsawthority.com>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
September 9, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/894.html