Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Wellness International Network, LTD v.
Lords of the Web
Claim
Number: FA0311000212646
Complainant is Wellness International Network, Ltd.,
Plano, TX (“Complainant”) respresented
by Sheri Matthews 5800 Democracy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024. Respondent is Lords of the Web (“Respondent”),
5435 W. Jewell, Lakewood, CO 80232.
The
domain name at issue is <bioleandirect.com>, registered with Tucows,
Inc.
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.
James
A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on November 19, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on November 20, 2003.
On
November 20, 2003, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <bioleandirect.com> is registered with Tucows, Inc.
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc. has
verified that Respondent
is bound by the Tucows, 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
November 25, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting
a deadline of December 15, 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@bioleandirect.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
December 23, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed
James A. Carmody,
Esq., 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 <bioleandirect.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BIOLEAN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <bioleandirect.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <bioleandirect.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant’s
business involves the advertising and sale of health and nutrition
products. Complainant registered the
BIOLEAN mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on September
1993 and has used the mark
in conjunction with its business since 1992.
Respondent
registered the <bioleandirect.com> domain name on May 28,
2002. The record does not indicate
whether the domain name resolves to an active 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 BIOLEAN mark through registration of the mark with
the USPTO and its use in commerce. 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 Smart
Design LLC v. Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000) (holding that ICANN
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require Complainant to demonstrate ‘exclusive
rights,’
but only that Complainant has a bona fide basis for making the
Complaint in the first place).
Also, the <bioleandirect.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to the BIOLEAN mark because the domain
name fully incorporates the mark and merely adds the generic
word
“direct.” Addition of the generic
top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the domain name is
confusingly similar. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Kil,
D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an
ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’
detract from the overall
impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark
SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
is satisfied); see also Am. Online,
Inc. v. Anytime Online Traffic School, FA 146930 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 11,
2003) (finding that Respondent’s domain names, which incorporated Complainant’s entire mark and merely added the descriptive
terms “traffic school,” “defensive driving,” and “driver improvement”
did not
add any distinctive features capable of overcoming a claim of confusing
similarity); see also Pomellato
S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding
<pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic
top-level domain
(gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Due to
Respondent’s failure to dispute the allegations in the Complaint, the Panel may
presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the <bioleandirect.com>
domain name. 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 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
record fails to establish that Respondent is commonly known by the <bioleandirect.com>
domain name. Complainant has not
licensed or authorized Respondent to register or use domain names that incorporate
the BIOLEAN mark. Therefore, the Panel
finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <bioleandirect.com>
domain name 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 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).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant
urges that Respondent registered and used the <bioleandirect.com> domain
name in bad faith. Respondent did not
provide the Panel with a Response in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and
inferences in the Complaint as true. See
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Bavarian AG, FA110830 (Nat. Arb. Forum June
17, 2002) (finding that in the absence of a Response the Panel is free to make
inferences from
the very failure to respond and assign greater weight to
certain circumstances than it might otherwise do); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw
adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply
to the Complaint.
It can be
inferred that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s
BIOLEAN mark because the mark has been used
in commerce since 1992, is
registered with the USPTO and the domain name fully incorporates the mark. Registration of a domain name, despite
knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is evidence of bad faith registration
pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii). See
Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“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”).
Complainant has
asserted that Respondent registered and used the <bioleandirect.com> domain
name in bad faith because Respondent intended to cause Internet user
confusion. Although Complainant has
provided scant evidence to support the allegation, the Panel accepts it as true
because Respondent has failed
to contest the allegation. See Red Bull GmbH v. Gutch, D2000-0766 (WIPO Sept. 21, 2000) (finding
that Respondent’s expected use of the domain name <redbull.org> would
lead people
to believe that the domain name was connected with Complainant, and
thus is the equivalent to bad faith use); see also Albrecht v. Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000)
(finding registration in bad faith based where there is no reasonable
possibility, and
no evidence from which to infer that the domain name was
selected at random since it entirely incorporated Complainant’s name); see
also Phat Fashions v. Kruger, FA
96193 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶
4(b)(iv) even though Respondent has not used the domain
name because “It makes
no sense whatever to wait until it actually ‘uses’ the name, when inevitably,
when there is such use, it will
create the confusion described in the Policy”);
see also CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000)
(finding bad faith where Respondent failed to provide any evidence to
controvert Complainant's allegation
that it registered the domain name in bad
faith and where any future use of the domain name would do nothing but cause
confusion
with Complainant’s mark, except in a few limited noncommercial or
fair use situations, which were not present).
Accordingly, 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 <bioleandirect.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated:
January 2, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/131.html