Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Interlink
Investments, Inc.
Claim
Number: FA0408000319140
Complainant is Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by J. Andrew Coombs, 450 North Brand Boulevard, Suite
600, Glendale, CA 91203-2349. Respondent is Interlink Investments, Inc. (“Respondent”), 8232 Holland Dr.,
Huntington BH, CA 92647-6319.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <disneymall.com>, registered with Network
Solutions, Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her 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 August 30, 2004; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 31, 2004.
On
September 2, 2004, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum
that the domain name <disneymall.com> is registered with Network
Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.
Network Solutions, Inc. has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Network
Solutions, Inc. 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
September 2, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting
a deadline of September 22, 2004 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@disneymall.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 29, 2004, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <disneymall.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <disneymall.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <disneymall.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant, Disney Enterprises, Inc., is one of the most
well-known providers of entertainment services and products in the world.
Complainant owns a trademark registration for the DISNEY mark (Reg. No.
1,162,727, issued July 28, 1981) with the United States Patent
and Trademark
Office (USPTO) for use in connection with its corporation and related products
and services. Complainant also owns
numerous trademark registrations for the
DISNEY family of marks (e.g. Reg. No. 2,194,742, issued Oct. 13, 1998; Reg. No.
2,156,261,
issued May 12, 1998 and Reg. No. 1,037, 788, issued Apr. 13, 1976)
for a variety of products including children’s books, activity
books, posters,
toys, key rings, etc. Complainant and its predecessors have used the DISNEY
mark since 1923 in connection with a
variety of entertainment-related goods and
services and as a result the DISNEY mark has acquired a positive international
reputation.
Complainant operates websites at the <disney.com> and
<disneystore.com> domain names, where consumers can access information
about Complainant’s products and services and purchase Complainant’s products.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 27, 2000.
Respondent is using the domain name to redirect Internet users
to its own
commercial website that offers search and directory services, as well as links
to sites that feature Disney vacations,
Disney products and online pharmacies.
Furthermore, Respondent offers the domain name registration for sale on the
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 that it has rights in the DISNEY mark through registration with the
USPTO. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. 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 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).
Respondent’s <disneymall.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark because the
domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety
and only deviates
with the addition of the generic term “mall,” and the generic top-level domain
“.com.” The mere addition of a generic
term and a generic top-level domain does
not negate the confusing similarity between Respondent’s domain name and
Complainant’s mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd.
v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing
similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of
Complainant
combined with a generic word or term); see also L.L. Bean,
Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding
that combining the generic word “shop” with Complainant’s registered mark
“llbean”
does not circumvent Complainant’s rights in the mark nor avoid the
confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); see
also Christie’s Inc. v.
Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction, Inc., D2001-0075 (WIPO Mar. 6, 2001) (finding
that the domain name
<christiesauction.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's
mark since it merely adds the word "auction" used in
its generic
sense); see also Rollerblade,
Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top
level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain
name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly
similar).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent
is using the <disneymall.com> domain name to divert Internet
traffic intended for Complainant to Respondent’s commercial website that offers search and directory services, as
well as links to sites that feature Disney vacations, Disney products and
online pharmacies.
The website also offers the domain name registration for
sale. Furthermore, Complainant asserts that Respondent likely receives monetary
compensation for traffic redirected to Respondent’s website. Respondent’s
use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark to
redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s
products and services to a
commercial website is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See U.S.
Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Howell, FA 152457 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of
Complainant’s mark and the goodwill surrounding that mark as a means of
attracting Internet users
to an unrelated business was not a bona fide offering
of goods or services); see also
MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests in the famous MSNBC mark where Respondent
attempted to
profit using Complainant’s mark by redirecting Internet traffic to
its own website); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA
132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s diversionary
use of Complainant’s marks to send Internet users
to a website which displayed
a series of links, some of which linked to competitors of Complainant, was not
a bona fide offering
of goods or services); see also Disney Enterss, Inc. v.
Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 17, 2003) (finding that
Respondent’s diversionary use of Complainant’s mark to attract Internet
users
to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated
websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods
or services nor a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names).
Moreover,
Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no proof in the record
suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the
<disneymall.com> domain
name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights 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 Gallup
Inc. v. Amish Country Store,
FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known
by the mark).
The Panel finds
that ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
registered the <disneymall.com> domain name for its own commercial
gain. Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet users wishing to search under
Complainant’s DISNEY
mark to Respondent’s commercial website, where Respondent offers search and directory services, as well
as links to sites that feature Disney vacations, Disney products and online
pharmacies.
Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial
gain, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name is evidence
of bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
See H-D Michigan,
Inc. v. Petersons Auto.,
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 State Fair
of Tex. v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding
bad faith where Respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to
infringe
on Complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to Respondent’s
website); see also Perot Sys.
Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad
faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with
Complainant’s
well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly
for commercial gain); see also TM
Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001)
(finding bad faith where Respondent used the domain name, for commercial gain,
to intentionally
attract users to a direct competitor of Complainant).
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 <disneymall.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
October 12, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1281.html