Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
DatingDirect.com Limited v. Top-pile c/o
Paddy Bolger
Claim
Number: FA0410000349191
Complainant is DatingDirect.com Limited (“Complainant”),
represented by Adam Taylor of Adlex Solicitors,
76A Belsize Lane, London NW3 5BJ, UNITED KINGDOM. Respondent is Top-pile c/o Paddy Bolger, Ferry House,
51-57 Lacy Road, Putney, London SW15 1PR, UNITED KINGDOM (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <personal-dating-direct.com>, registered
with Register.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 electronically October
25, 2004; the National Arbitration Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint October
25, 2004.
On
October 26, 2004, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration
Forum that the domain name <personal-dating-direct.com> is
registered with Register.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. Register.com verified that Respondent
is bound by the Register.com registration
agreement and thereby has 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 28, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting
a deadline of November 17, 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@personal-dating-direct.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 30, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration
Forum appointed Hon.
Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. The domain name that Respondent
registered, <personal-dating-direct.com>, is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s DATING DIRECT and DATINGDIRECT.COM marks.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the <personal-dating-direct.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <personal-dating-direct.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
DatingDirect.com Limited, registered the DATINGDIRECT.COM mark (Trademark
2,232,175, dated May 11, 2000) and the DATING
DIRECT mark (Trademark 2,318,425,
dated December 24, 2000) in the United Kingdom. Complainant operates an online dating agency at the
<datingdirect.com> domain name. The website was launched in March of
1999.
Complainant
expended considerable amounts of money promoting and marketing its brand: by
the end of 2003, Complainant had spent almost
₤6 million on marketing. As a result, Complainant’s services and mark
have received extensive press coverage and Complainant currently has
approximately two
million registered users.
Respondent registered the domain name <personal-dating-direct.com>
September 13, 2002. Complainant became
aware of Respondent’s registration in September 2004. Respondent’s domain name resolves first to a temporary page and
then after several seconds resolves to a different website. There is a link on the temporary page to
“The Dating Channel,” one of Complainant’s competitors. There is another link to “Dating Direct”
which does not direct users to Complainant’s website but instead directs users
to yet another
competitor’s site.
Respondent’s domain name ultimately resolves to a search engine
featuring links to other dating service websites.
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 Complainant to 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 DATING DIRECT and DATINGDIRECT.COM marks
through registration and through the
continuous use of the mark in commerce
since 1999. 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 <personal-dating-direct.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DATING DIRECT
marks. The domain name entirely
incorporates Complainant’s mark with the addition of the generic term
“personal.” Neither word disguises the
fact that the dominant feature of the domain name is the DATING DIRECT mark,
and each is therefore confusingly
similar to that mark. 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 Sony Kabushiki
Kaisha v. Inja, 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).
Additionally,
Respondent’s addition of hyphens between the individual words of Complainant’s
marks does not diminish the confusing
similarity between Respondent’s domain
name and Complainant’s marks. See Nintendo of Am. Inc. v. This Domain Is For
Sale, D2000-1197 (WIPO Nov. 1, 2000) (finding <game-boy.com>
identical and confusingly similar Complainant’s GAME BOY mark, even
though the
domain name is a combination of two descriptive words divided by a hyphen); see
also Chernow Communications, Inc. v.
Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence
of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact
that a name is
identical to a mark.")
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent
failed to respond to the Complaint.
Therefore, the Panel accepts all reasonable allegations set forth in the
Complaint as true. See Am.
Online, Inc. v. Clowers, FA 199821 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 14, 2003)
(finding that the failure to challenge a complainant’s allegations allows a
panel to accept
all of the complainant’s reasonable allegations and inferences
as true); see also Wells
Fargo & Co. v. Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003)
(finding that failure to respond to a complaint allows a panel to make
reasonable inferences
in favor of a complainant and accept the complainant’s
allegations as true).
In addition, the
Panel construes Respondent’s failure to respond as an admission that Respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests
in the disputed 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 Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Domain Deluxe, FA 269166 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29,
2004) (“The failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint functions both as
an implicit
admission that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests
in the domain names, as well as a presumption that Complainant’s
reasonable
allegations are true.”).
Respondent is
using the <personal-dating-direct.com> domain name to redirect
Internet users to websites that contain various links to several online dating
sites in direct competition
with Complainant’s business. Respondent’s use of a domain name that is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s DATING DIRECT marks to redirect Internet
users interested
in Complainant’s products to a commercial website that
provides links to websites that compete with Complainant is not a use in
connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See Toronto-Dominion Bank v.
Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because Respondent's sole
purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion with Complainant's
website and marks, its use of the names was not in connection with the offering
of goods or services or any other fair use); see also Computerized
Sec. Sys., Inc v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding
that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to market products that
compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of
goods and services); see also Ticketmaster
Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by
intentionally
and misleadingly diverting users away from Complainant's site to
a competing website).
Furthermore,
nothing in the record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by the
disputed domain name. Respondent
is not licensed or authorized to register or use domain names that incorporate
Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the
Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
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).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii) by registering a domain name that
is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark and using it to market competing dating services. See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385
(Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding
that the minor degree of variation from Complainant's marks suggests that
Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered
the names primarily for the
purpose of disrupting Complainant's business); see also S. Exposure v.
S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent
acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that
competes with
Complainant’s business).
Furthermore,
Respondent is capitalizing on the goodwill of the DATING DIRECT mark by using
the disputed domain name to divert Internet
users to a website featuring links
for competing services. Since the
disputed domain name contains entire versions of Complainant’s marks and is
used for something completely unrelated to its
descriptive quality, a consumer
searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation
with the resulting
website. Therefore,
Respondent’s opportunistic use of the disputed domain name represents bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
See 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)); see
also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v.
Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where
Respondent directed Internet users seeking Complainant’s site
to its own
website for commercial gain).
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 <personal-dating-direct.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: December 14, 2004.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1565.html