|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Time Warner, Inc. v. Alvaro Collazo
Claim
Number: FA0410000338464
Complainant is Time Warner, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented
by James R. Davis, of Arent Fox PLLC, 1050
Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Respondent is Alvaro Collazo
(“Respondent”), Manuel Oribe 2028, Tarariras, Colonia 70000 R.O.U.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain name at issue is <aolam.com>, <caramaol.com>, <httpaol.com>,
<latinmaiol.com>, <latinmaol.com>, <caryoonnetwork.com>,
<cnnenepanol.com>, <cnneespanol.com>, <cnneneapanol.com>,
<cnnespaniol.com>, <cnnenespano.com>, <cnnenespnaol.com>,
<cnncom.com>, <cnnenespnol.com>, <cnnmony.com>,
<cnnso.com>, <wwwcnnenespanol.com>, <compsuerve.com>,
<copmpuserve.com>, <harrupotter.com>, <harrypotterandtheorderofphoenix.com>,
<harrypotterandtheprisionerofazkaban.com>, <iharrypotter.com>,
<harrypotterandtheprisonerofaskavan.com>, <harrypotterandtheprisonerofazcaban.com>,
<icqturk.net>, <icqmial.com>, <wwwicqmail.com>,
<lordodtherings.com>, <lordodtherings.net>, <lordftherings.com>,
<lordftherings.net>, <lordiftherings.net>, <lordofherings.net>,
<lordoftheringd.com>, <lordoftheringd.net>, <lordoftheings.net>,
<lordoftherngs.net>, <lordoftherigs.net>, <lordofthrrings.com>,
<lordofthrrings.net>, <lordogtherings.com>, <lordogtherings.net>,
<lorfoftherings.net>, <lrdoftherings.net>, <wwwlordoftherings.net>,
<mapqjest.com>, <mapquewt.com>, <movifon.com>,
<netscapr.net>, <nrtscape.com>, <njetscape.com>,
<hnetscape.com>, <www-netscape.com>, <thesopranos.net>,
<wionamp.com>, <wuinamp.com> and <wwwtimewarnercable.com>,
registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com.
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 electronically on October
4, 2004; the National Arbitration Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint
on October 7, 2004.
On
October 6, 2004, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail
to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain
names <aolam.com>,
<caramaol.com>, <httpaol.com>, <latinmaiol.com>,
<latinmaol.com>, <caryoonnetwork.com>, <cnnenepanol.com>,
<cnneespanol.com>, <cnneneapanol.com>, <cnnespaniol.com>,
<cnnenespano.com>, <cnnenespnaol.com>, <cnncom.com>,
<cnnenespnol.com>, <cnnmony.com>, <cnnso.com>,
<wwwcnnenespanol.com>, <compsuerve.com>, <copmpuserve.com>,
<harrupotter.com>, <harrypotterandtheorderofphoenix.com>,
<harrypotterandtheprisionerofazkaban.com>, <iharrypotter.com>,
<harrypotterandtheprisonerofaskavan.com>, <harrypotterandtheprisonerofazcaban.com>,
<icqturk.net>, <icqmial.com>, <wwwicqmail.com>,
<lordodtherings.com>, <lordodtherings.net>, <lordftherings.com>,
<lordftherings.net>, <lordiftherings.net>, <lordofherings.net>,
<lordoftheringd.com>, <lordoftheringd.net>, <lordoftheings.net>,
<lordoftherngs.net>, <lordoftherigs.net>, <lordofthrrings.com>,
<lordofthrrings.net>, <lordogtherings.com>, <lordogtherings.net>,
<lorfoftherings.net>, <lrdoftherings.net>, <wwwlordoftherings.net>,
<mapqjest.com>, <mapquewt.com>, <movifon.com>,
<netscapr.net>, <nrtscape.com>, <njetscape.com>,
<hnetscape.com>, <www-netscape.com>, <thesopranos.net>,
<wionamp.com>, <wuinamp.com> and <wwwtimewarnercable.com>
are registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Iholdings.com,
Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.com has 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
October 11, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting
a deadline of November 1, 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@aolam.com,
postmaster@caramaol.com, postmaster@httpaol.com, postmaster@latinmaiol.com,
postmaster@latinmaol.com,
postmaster@caryoonnetwork.com,
postmaster@cnnenepanol.com, postmaster@cnneespanol.com,
postmaster@cnneneapanol.com, postmaster@cnnespaniol.com,
postmaster@cnnenespano.com, postmaster@cnnenespnaol.com, postmaster@cnncom.com,
postmaster@cnnenespnol.com, postmaster@cnnmony.com,
postmaster@cnnso.com,
postmaster@wwwcnnenespanol.com, postmaster@compsuerve.com,
postmaster@copmpuserve.com, postmaster@harrupotter.com,
postmaster@harrypotterandtheorderofphoenix.com,
postmaster@harrypotterandtheprisionerofazkaban.com,
postmaster@iharrypotter.com,
postmaster@harrypotterandtheprisonerofaskavan.com,
postmaster@harrypotterandtheprisonerofazcaban.com, postmaster@icqturk.net,
postmaster@icqmial.com,
postmaster@wwwicqmail.com,
postmaster@lordodtherings.com, postmaster@lordodtherings.net,
postmaster@lordftherings.com, postmaster@lordftherings.net,
postmaster@lordiftherings.net, postmaster@lordofherings.net,
postmaster@lordoftheringd.com, postmaster@lordoftheringd.net,
postmaster@lordoftheings.net,
postmaster@lordoftherngs.net,
postmaster@lordoftherigs.net, postmaster@lordofthrrings.com,
postmaster@lordofthrrings.net, postmaster@lordogtherings.com,
postmaster@lordogtherings.net, postmaster@lorfoftherings.net,
postmaster@lrdoftherings.net, postmaster@wwwlordoftherings.net,
postmaster@mapqjest.com,
postmaster@mapquewt.com, postmaster@movifon.com,
postmaster@netscapr.net, postmaster@nrtscape.com, postmaster@njetscape.com,
postmaster@hnetscape.com,
postmaster@www-netscape.com,
postmaster@thesopranos.net, postmaster@wionamp.com, postmaster@wuinamp.com and
postmaster@wwwtimewarnercable.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 National
Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent
Default.
On
November 13, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration
Forum appointed
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 <aolam.com>, <caramaol.com>,
<httpaol.com>, <latinmaiol.com>, <latinmaol.com>,
<caryoonnetwork.com>, <cnnenepanol.com>, <cnneespanol.com>,
<cnneneapanol.com>, <cnnespaniol.com>, <cnnenespano.com>,
<cnnenespnaol.com>, <cnncom.com>, <cnnenespnol.com>,
<cnnmony.com>, <cnnso.com>, <wwwcnnenespanol.com>,
<compsuerve.com>, <copmpuserve.com>, <harrupotter.com>,
<harrypotterandtheorderofphoenix.com>, <harrypotterandtheprisionerofazkaban.com>,
<iharrypotter.com>, <harrypotterandtheprisonerofaskavan.com>,
<harrypotterandtheprisonerofazcaban.com>, <icqturk.net>,
<icqmial.com>, <wwwicqmail.com>, <lordodtherings.com>,
<lordodtherings.net>, <lordftherings.com>, <lordftherings.net>,
<lordiftherings.net>, <lordofherings.net>, <lordoftheringd.com>,
<lordoftheringd.net>, <lordoftheings.net>, <lordoftherngs.net>,
<lordoftherigs.net>, <lordofthrrings.com>, <lordofthrrings.net>,
<lordogtherings.com>, <lordogtherings.net>, <lorfoftherings.net>,
<lrdoftherings.net>, <wwwlordoftherings.net>, <mapqjest.com>,
<mapquewt.com>, <movifon.com>, <netscapr.net>,
<nrtscape.com>, <njetscape.com>, <hnetscape.com>,
<www-netscape.com>, <thesopranos.net>, <wionamp.com>,
<wuinamp.com> and <wwwtimewarnercable.com> domain
names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL, CARTOON NETWORK, CNN,
COMPUSERVE, HARRY POTTER, ICQ, MAPQUEST, MOVIEFONE,
NETSCAPE, THE SORPANOS,
WINAMP and TIME WARNER CABLE marks (collectively the “TIME WARNER MARKS”).
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <aolam.com>, <caramaol.com>,
<httpaol.com>, <latinmaiol.com>, <latinmaol.com>,
<caryoonnetwork.com>, <cnnenepanol.com>, <cnneespanol.com>,
<cnneneapanol.com>, <cnnespaniol.com>, <cnnenespano.com>,
<cnnenespnaol.com>, <cnncom.com>, <cnnenespnol.com>,
<cnnmony.com>, <cnnso.com>, <wwwcnnenespanol.com>,
<compsuerve.com>, <copmpuserve.com>, <harrupotter.com>,
<harrypotterandtheorderofphoenix.com>, <harrypotterandtheprisionerofazkaban.com>,
<iharrypotter.com>, <harrypotterandtheprisonerofaskavan.com>,
<harrypotterandtheprisonerofazcaban.com>, <icqturk.net>,
<icqmial.com>, <wwwicqmail.com>, <lordodtherings.com>,
<lordodtherings.net>, <lordftherings.com>, <lordftherings.net>,
<lordiftherings.net>, <lordofherings.net>, <lordoftheringd.com>,
<lordoftheringd.net>, <lordoftheings.net>, <lordoftherngs.net>,
<lordoftherigs.net>, <lordofthrrings.com>, <lordofthrrings.net>,
<lordogtherings.com>, <lordogtherings.net>, <lorfoftherings.net>,
<lrdoftherings.net>, <wwwlordoftherings.net>, <mapqjest.com>,
<mapquewt.com>, <movifon.com>, <netscapr.net>,
<nrtscape.com>, <njetscape.com>, <hnetscape.com>,
<www-netscape.com>, <thesopranos.net>, <wionamp.com>,
<wuinamp.com> and <wwwtimewarnercable.com> domain
names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aolam.com>,
<caramaol.com>, <httpaol.com>, <latinmaiol.com>,
<latinmaol.com>, <caryoonnetwork.com>, <cnnenepanol.com>,
<cnneespanol.com>, <cnneneapanol.com>, <cnnespaniol.com>,
<cnnenespano.com>, <cnnenespnaol.com>, <cnncom.com>,
<cnnenespnol.com>, <cnnmony.com>, <cnnso.com>,
<wwwcnnenespanol.com>, <compsuerve.com>, <copmpuserve.com>,
<harrupotter.com>, <harrypotterandtheorderofphoenix.com>,
<harrypotterandtheprisionerofazkaban.com>, <iharrypotter.com>,
<harrypotterandtheprisonerofaskavan.com>, <harrypotterandtheprisonerofazcaban.com>,
<icqturk.net>, <icqmial.com>, <wwwicqmail.com>,
<lordodtherings.com>, <lordodtherings.net>, <lordftherings.com>,
<lordftherings.net>, <lordiftherings.net>, <lordofherings.net>,
<lordoftheringd.com>, <lordoftheringd.net>, <lordoftheings.net>,
<lordoftherngs.net>, <lordoftherigs.net>, <lordofthrrings.com>,
<lordofthrrings.net>, <lordogtherings.com>, <lordogtherings.net>,
<lorfoftherings.net>, <lrdoftherings.net>, <wwwlordoftherings.net>,
<mapqjest.com>, <mapquewt.com>, <movifon.com>,
<netscapr.net>, <nrtscape.com>, <njetscape.com>,
<hnetscape.com>, <www-netscape.com>, <thesopranos.net>,
<wionamp.com>, <wuinamp.com> and <wwwtimewarnercable.com>
domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Time Warner, Inc., owns trademark registration rights in the TIME WARNER MARKS
through registration with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (e.g.
Reg. No. 2,129,378, issued January 13, 1998).
Complainant uses the TIME WARNER MARKS in connection with various
entertainment, computer, and Internet-related goods and services. Complainant has used the TIME WARNER MARKS
continuously in interstate and international commerce in connection with the
advertising
and sale of goods and services.
Complainant is a licensee of the mark LORD OF THE RINGS and through its
film production company New Line Cinema, has produced an award-winning
series
of motion pictures under that brand. The LORD OF THE RINGS mark will
hereinafter be inclusive of the “TIME WARNER MARKS.”
Respondent
registered the disputed domain names on various dates between April 14, 2001
and August 31, 2004. Respondent is
using the domain names to divert Internet users to commercial websites
featuring pop-up advertisements for various products
and services, including,
inter alia, adult dating services, online pharmaceuticals and gambling.
Additionally,
aside from the 58 domain names at issue in the present case, Respondent has
been involved in numerous domain name disputes
involving third-party marks,
which included marks such as HEWLETT-PACKARD, SOCIETE AIR FRANCE and
EXPEDIA. See Hewlett Packard Co. v.
Alvaro Collazo, FA 144628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2003); see also
Societe Air France v. Alvaro Collazo, D2003-0417 (WIPO July 22, 2003); see
also Expedia v. Alvaro Collazo, D2003-0716 (WIPO Oct. 30, 2003).
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 its TIME WARNER MARKS 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
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIME WARNER MARKS because
the domain names incorporate misspelled
versions of Complainant’s marks. The Panel finds that typographical errors
and transposed and omitted letters in a domain name are insufficient to
distinguish the
disputed domain names from Complainant’s TIME WARNER
MARKS. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13,
2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a
trademark has a greater tendency
to be confusingly similar to the trademark
where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Powerclick,
Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the deliberate
introduction of errors or changes, such as the addition of a fourth
“w” or the
omission of periods or other such generic typos do not change respondent’s
infringement on a core trademark held by Complainant);
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); see
also 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 Google
Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to
Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and
noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters
does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity,
as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”).
Additionally,
the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks
because adding a top-level domain to a mark
is irrelevant for purposes of
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493
(WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding the disputed domain name identical to
Complainant’s mark because the top-level domain name
is not relevant); see
also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness
Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding that the addition of
a top-level domain name is legally insignificant since the use of
a top-level
domain is required of domain name registrants"); see also Interstellar Starship Servs. Ltd. v. EPIX,
Inc., 983 F.Supp. 1331, 1335 (D.Or. 1997) (finding <epix.com> is
identical to EPIX).
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
is established.
Respondent has
not asserted any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Therefore, the Panel may accept all
reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant without the
benefit of a Response. See 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); see
also Vert. Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. Webnet-marketing, Inc., FA 95095 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows
all reasonable inferences of fact
in the allegations of Complainant to be
deemed true); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where Complainant has asserted that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests with respect to the domain
name, it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence
rebutting this assertion
because this information is “uniquely within the
knowledge and control of the respondent”); 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).
Additionally,
there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain
names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The WHOIS registration information does not indicate that Respondent is
commonly known by the domain names. 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
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).
Furthermore,
Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because
Respondent is using domain
names confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks to
divert Internet users to websites containing pop-up advertisements for various
products and services, including, inter alia, adult dating services, online
pharmaceuticals and gambling. See
Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc. v. Henry Chan, FA 154119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May
12, 2003) (finding that Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests
in a domain name that
used Complainant’s mark and redirected Internet users to website
that pays domain name registrants for referring those users to its
search
engine and pop-up advertisements); see also Geoffrey, Inc. v. Toyrus.com,
FA 150406 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 5, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name, a simple misspelling of Complainant’s
mark, to divert
Internet users to a website that featured pop-up advertisements and an Internet
directory, was neither a bona fide
offering of goods or services nor a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name).
Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) is established.
Complainant
asserts Respondent registered and used the domain names containing
Complainant’s TIME WARNER MARKS for commercial gain. Respondent’s domain names divert Internet users to Respondent’s
commercial website containing pop-up ads, through the use of domain
names
containing typographical errors and misspellings of Complainant’s marks. Respondent’s use of the domain names in this
manner in order to obtain click-through fees from the pop-up ads violates
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)
and constitutes bad faith registration and use of the domain
names. See Bank of America Corp. v.
Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating
that “[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of
Complainant’s
marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their
descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become
confused
as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website” in
holding that the domain names were registered
and used in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); 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);
see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its
diversionary use of Complainant's mark when
the domain name resolves to
commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be
concluded that Respondent
is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Complainant
alleges that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names is
typosquatting and that Respondent preys
on Internet users who mistype
Complainant’s marks in domain names in search of Complainant. The Panel finds that Complainant’s use of
mistyped versions of Complainant’s TIME WARNER MARKS in domain names is
evidence of bad
faith registration and use.
See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l
Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003)
(“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to
intercept and siphon off
traffic from its intended destination, by preying on
Internauts who make common typing errors.
Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad
faith”); see also Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Internet Hosting, FA
124516 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (stating that, “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”).
Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) is established.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <aolam.com>, <caramaol.com>, <httpaol.com>,
<latinmaiol.com>, <latinmaol.com>, <caryoonnetwork.com>,
<cnnenepanol.com>, <cnneespanol.com>, <cnneneapanol.com>,
<cnnespaniol.com>, <cnnenespano.com>, <cnnenespnaol.com>,
<cnncom.com>, <cnnenespnol.com>, <cnnmony.com>,
<cnnso.com>, <wwwcnnenespanol.com>, <compsuerve.com>,
<copmpuserve.com>, <harrupotter.com>, <harrypotterandtheorderofphoenix.com>,
<harrypotterandtheprisionerofazkaban.com>, <iharrypotter.com>,
<harrypotterandtheprisonerofaskavan.com>, <harrypotterandtheprisonerofazcaban.com>,
<icqturk.net>, <icqmial.com>, <wwwicqmail.com>,
<lordodtherings.com>, <lordodtherings.net>, <lordftherings.com>,
<lordftherings.net>, <lordiftherings.net>, <lordofherings.net>,
<lordoftheringd.com>, <lordoftheringd.net>, <lordoftheings.net>,
<lordoftherngs.net>, <lordoftherigs.net>, <lordofthrrings.com>,
<lordofthrrings.net>, <lordogtherings.com>, <lordogtherings.net>,
<lorfoftherings.net>, <lrdoftherings.net>, <wwwlordoftherings.net>,
<mapqjest.com>, <mapquewt.com>, <movifon.com>,
<netscapr.net>, <nrtscape.com>, <njetscape.com>,
<hnetscape.com>, <www-netscape.com>, <thesopranos.net>,
<wionamp.com>, <wuinamp.com> and <wwwtimewarnercable.com>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: November 29, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1404.html