DECISION

The American National Red Cross v. Universal Translator, Inc. a/k/a Zlatko Yankulov

Claim Number:  FA0402000237440

PARTIES

Complainant is The American National Red Cross (“Complainant”), represented by James L. Bikoff, of Silverberg Goldman & Bikoff, LLP, 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 120, Washington, DC 20007. Respondent is Universal Translator, Inc. a/k/a Zlatko Yankulov (“Respondent”), 3930 Swenson #310, Las Vegas, NV 89119.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <globalredcross.com> and <worldredcross.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.

PANEL

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.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 13, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 16, 2004.

On February 13, 2004, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <globalredcross.com> and <worldredcross.com> are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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 February 19, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 10, 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@globalredcross.com and postmaster@worldredcross.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 March 17, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <globalredcross.com> and <worldredcross.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RED CROSS mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <globalredcross.com> and <worldredcross.com> domain names.

3. Respondent registered and used the <globalredcross.com> and <worldredcross.com> domain names in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant, The American National Red Cross, chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1905 to provide disaster relief, emergency aid, first aid training programs and humanitarian assistance in times of war and peace, provides these services under its federally registered RED CROSS mark (U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,740,132 and 2,752,477, protected under statute by 18 U.S.C. §706 and §917 and incorporated into 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)). In 2003, the Red Cross spent approximately $114.3 million on disaster services and collected 6.42 million units of blood from 3.85 million donors, accounting for almost half of the U.S. blood supply. 18 U.S.C. §706 grants Complainant exclusive use of the distinctive RED CROSS words and symbols, and is also specifically referenced in the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act at 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(1)(A)(i)(III) as protected by that Act.

Respondent, Universal Translator, Inc. a/k/a Zlatko Yankulov, registered the  <globalredcross.com> and <worldredcross.com> domain names November 28, 2002, without authorization to use the RED CROSS mark for any purpose. The disputed domain names both host “Coming Soon” websites with content for the <discountdomainregistry.com> domain name and banner advertisements for the <successfulhosting.com> and <123language.com> domain names. On December 28, 2002, Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent. Respondent replied with the statement “if you are interested to purchase these domains you can offer us a price and we may decide to sell it if the offer is good…!” After several other attempts to reach Respondent were ignored, Respondent eventually replied to one of Complainant’s e-mails with the statement “[l]et us make an offer to you – we can make a deal to sell both domains to AMERICAN Red Cross or some body else (EBAY auction is also an option) will pay your company 20% commission of the selling price and will donate the rest of the money to people that need help in ENGLAND, US, CANADA, AUSTRALIA and other countries…The only way we can transfer any of the domains is…if somebody is able to show and prove us that Non Profit Organization by the exact name ‘GLOBAL Red Cross’ or ‘WORLD’ Red Cross has been registered before the date of our domain name registrations…” After subsequently informing Complainant that it would be out of the country in Europe until the end of March 2004, Respondent ceased all communications with Complainant.

DISCUSSION

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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the RED CROSS mark through evidence of widespread use of the mark in commerce, through evidence of acts of Congress protecting that mark, and through registration of the mark on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 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”).

Respondent’s <globalredcross.com> and <worldredcross.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RED CROSS mark. Both contain the distinctive and statutorily protected RED CROSS mark in its entirety, with the addition of the words “global” or “world.” Neither of these words serve to distinguish the domain names from the underlying RED CROSS mark. See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also 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).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <globalredcross.com> and <worldredcross.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RED CROSS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Resopndent is using the disputed domain names to host a “Coming Soon” webpage, with no evidence that any page will be “coming soon” to the domain names. What is clear is that Respondent is using the domain names to host advertisements, and has twice attempted to sell its registrations to Complainant. From the facts before the Panel, it appears that Respondent’s primary intent in registering the disputed domain names was to sell its registrations to Complainant, the rightful holder of the RED CROSS mark. This is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, evidence that Respondent has not come forward to rebut. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that use of Complainant’s mark “as a portal to suck surfers into a site sponsored by Respondent hardly seems legitimate”); see also Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. Domains, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name is further evidenced by Respondent’s attempt to sell its domain name registration to Complainant, the rightful holder of the RED CROSS mark.”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding Respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <globalredcross.com> and <worldredcross.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Under U.S. law, Respondent has no right to use the RED CROSS mark in a domain name, yet chose to register the disputed domain names regardless. Whether or not Respondent’s principal purpose in registering the disputed domain names was to sell its registrations to Complainant, 18 U.S.C. §706 and §917 alone permit the inferrence that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith, and Respondent has not come forward with any evidence rebutting this presumption. See Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. Domains, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (“As both parties are residents of the United States, this statute alone [18 U.S.C. §706 and §917, a federal statute protecting Complainant’s rights in the RED CROSS mark] permits the Panel to conclude that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith); see also Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Ritchey, FA 128817 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 20, 2003) (finding that Respondent's registration was done in violation of a federal statute, and as such was held to be ipso facto bad faith).

The Panel thus finds that Respondent registered and used the <globalredcross.com> and <worldredcross.com> domain names in bad faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <globalredcross.com> and <worldredcross.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated:  March 31, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/238.html