Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Popular, Inc. v. Henry Chan
Claim Number: FA0308000183739
Complainant is Popular, Inc., San Juan, Peurto Rico
(“Complainant”) represented by Michael
W.O. Holihan of Holihan Diaz. Respondent is Henry Chan, Nassau, Bahamas
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <bancopopulardepuertorico.com> registered
with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com.
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.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on August 11, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 13, 2003.
On
August 21, 2003, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <bancopopulardepuertorico.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 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
August 21, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
September 10, 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@bancopopulardepuertorico.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
September 22, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's 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 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. The domain name registered by Respondent,
<bancopopulardepuertorico.com>, is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s BANCO POPULAR mark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <bancopopulardepuertorico.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <bancopopulardepuertorico.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
produced evidence in this proceeding of its trademark registration with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) for the BANCO POPULAR mark
(Reg. No. 1,882,478 registered on March 7, 1995) in relation to banking
services. Complainant
has used the mark in connection with banking services in
Puerto Rico for some 100 years.
Respondent registered
the <bancopopulardepuertorico.com> domain name April 4, 2003.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to a
website at the <dp.information.com>
domain name. This website diverts
Internet users to banks that compete with Complainant.
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
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 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
established in this proceeding that it has rights in the BANCO POPULAR mark
through registration with the USPTO. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5,
2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which
creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this
assumption).
Complainant
argues that the domain name registered by Respondent, <bancopopulardepuertorico.com>,
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name
incorporates Complainant’s mark and adds “de Puerto
Rico” to the end of the
mark. Since the Spanish word “de” translates to the English word “of,” the only
substantive difference between
the domain name and the mark is the addition of
the geographic designation “Puerto Rico.” The addition of a geographic term to
a
trademarked term in a domain name does not sufficiently differentiate the
domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Net2phone Inc, v. Netcall SAGL,
D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s registration of the
domain name <net2phone-europe.com> is confusingly
similar to
Complainant’s mark…"the combination of
a geographic term with the mark does not prevent a domain name from being found
confusingly similar"); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada,
D2000-0150 (WIPO May 2, 2000) (finding that the domain name,
<walmartcanada.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous
mark).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Complainant
established in this proceeding that it has rights to and legitimate interests
in the mark contained in its entirety within
the disputed domain name. Respondent did not contest Complainant’s
allegations in this proceeding; thus, the Panel accepts as true all of the
reasonable allegations
and inferences in the Complaint. See Do the Hustle,
LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a
respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount
to
admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB,
D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a
presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless
clearly contradicted
by the evidence).
Moreover, the
Panel will presume that Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in
the <bancopopulardepuertorico.com> domain name because Respondent
failed to respond. See Geocities
v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because Respondent
never submitted a response or provided the Panel with evidence to suggest
otherwise); see also 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).
Respondent is
using the <bancopopulardepuertorico.com> domain name to divert
Internet traffic to a website that provides links to banks that compete with
Complainant’s banking services.
The use of a domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant’s BANCO POPULAR mark to provide links to competitors of Complainant
is
not a bona fide offering of goods or services with regard to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
with regard to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). 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 Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.
11, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to
redirect Internet users
to a financial services website, which competed with
Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
Respondent
offered no proof and no evidence in the record suggests that Respondent is
commonly known by <bancopopulardepuertorico.com>. Therefore, the
Panel finds that Respondent failed to establish rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); 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 established.
Complainant
alleges that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
Respondent uses the <bancopopulardepuertorico.com> domain name to
divert Internet users to Complainant’s competitors. Using Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name evidences
Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant
to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, Respondent intentionally is attempting to attract
Internet users to its website for commercial gain
by creating a likelihood of
confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or
endorsement of Respondent’s
website. See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons
Auto. a/k/a Larry Petersons, FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding
that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through Respondent’s registration and use of the infringing
domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet
users to its
fraudulent website by using Complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see
also 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).
Furthermore,
Respondent’s registration of a domain name incorporating both Complainant’s
BANCO POPULAR mark and Complainant’s primary
place of business, Puerto Rico,
suggests that Respondent knew of Complainant’s interest in its mark prior to
such registration and
use. Respondent’s registration of a domain name
containing Complainant’s mark, <bancopopulardepuertorico.com>,
despite Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark, establishes
Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the
domain name under Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135,
1148 (9th
Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) ("Where an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows
to be similar to another, one can infer an intent
to confuse"); 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”).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <bancopopulardepuertorico.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: October 6, 2003.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/958.html