Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Sunny Leisure, Inc. v. WW Processing
Claim
Number: FA0401000225459
Complainant is Sunny Leisure, Inc., St. John’s,
Antigua (“Complainant”) represented by John
Berryhill, of Dann, Dorfman, Herrell, and Skillman P.C., 1601 Market Street, Suite 2400,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Respondent is WW Processing,
Hertiage Plaza, Main Street, Charlestown, St. Kitts and Nevis (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <mapaucasino.com>, registered with Tucows,
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.
James A. Crary as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on January 11, 2004; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on January 12, 2004.
On
January 13, 2004, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <mapaucasino.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
January 19, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting
a deadline of February 9, 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@mapaucasino.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
February 16, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed
James A. Crary 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 <mapaucasino.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MA PAU mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <mapaucasino.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <mapaucasino.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant is
the operator of an online casino located at the <mapau.com> domain name.
Additionally, Complainant operates the
land-based “Ma Pau Casino” located in
Port of Spain, Trinidad.
In conjunction
with its use in the casino business, Complainant’s MA PAU mark has been in
commercial use since 1998. Complainant
filed a registration application with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) on June 12, 2001.
Registration was subsequently granted on February 4, 2003 (Reg. No.
2772215).
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name <mapaucasino.com> on May 27,
1999. Internet users are redirected
from the disputed domain name to a website that offers online betting for
sporting events. Additionally, users
are confronted with a variety of pop-up advertisements for casinos unaffiliated
with Complainant.
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’s
registration of the MA PAU mark with the USPTO and its continuous use in
commerce confers rights in the mark to Complainant. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher,
D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that the 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); see also 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
incorporated Complainant’s registered mark in its entirety within the disputed
domain name. Merely omitting the space between
the words of the MA PAU mark and
adding the descriptive term “casino” fails to satisfactorily distinguish the
domain name from the
mark under the Policy. See Nikon, Inc. v. Technilab,
Inc., D2000-1774 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2000) (holding that confusing similarity
under the Policy is decided upon the inclusion of a trademark
in the domain
name); see also Magnum Piering, Inc. v. Mudjackers & Wilson,
D2000-1525 (WIPO Jan. 29, 2001) (holding that confusing similarity under the
Policy is decided upon the inclusion of a trademark
in the domain name); see
also Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER
RE, “as spaces are impermissible
in domain names”); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the
<hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a word describing the type of
business in which Complainant is engaged, does not take
the disputed domain
name out of the realm of confusing similarity); 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).
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
is established for Complainant.
Respondent has
not responded to the Complaint. Therefore, the Panel may construe this fact as
an implicit 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 Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l,
D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent fails to respond); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In
the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations
of the Complaint.”).
Respondent is
not licensed or authorized by Complainant to use the MA PAU mark. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
LaFaive, FA 95407 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2000) (“unauthorized providing
of information and services under a mark owned by a third party
cannot be said
to be the bona fide offering of goods or services”); see also Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallow,
D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb.18, 2000) (finding that Respondent lacked rights and
legitimate interests in the domain name because Respondent
was not authorized
by Complainant to use its trademarks and the mark was distinct in its nature,
such that one would not legitimately
choose it unless seeking to create an
impression of an association with Complainant).
Respondent is
not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because Respondent uses the name to
assail Internet
users with an array of pop-up advertisements that feature
casinos in competition with Complainant.
See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat.
Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of infringing domain
names to direct Internet traffic to
a search engine website that hosted pop-up
advertisements was evidence that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate
interests in the
domain name); see also Geoffrey, Inc. v. Toyrus.com, FA
150406 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2003) (finding that Respondent had no rights
or legitimate interests in a domain name that it
used to redirect Internet
users to an Internet directory website that featured numerous pop-up
advertisements); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. d/b/a SAFLOK 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 Chip Merch.,
Inc. v. Blue Star Elec., D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that the
disputed domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and that
Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was illegitimate
and not a bona fide offering of goods); see also Winmark Corp. d/b/a Play It
Again Sports v. In The Zone a/k/a Giant Sports Factory, FA 128652 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate
interests in a domain name that used
Complainant’s mark to redirect Internet
users to a competitor’s website).
No evidence has
been advanced by Respondent that indicates it is commonly known by the disputed
domain name. Therefore, Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
is inapplicable. See 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); see also 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).
Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) is established.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv) by directing Internet users to
a website that offers similar services
as Complainant, presumably for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of
confusion with
Complainant’s MA PAU mark. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding
that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his
website for commercial
gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s mark and offering the same services as Complainant via his
website);
see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. d/b/a SAFLOK v. Hu, FA
157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of the
<saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing
with Complainant’s
illustrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); 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).
Additionally, Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii) because Respondent
registered and used a domain name confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark primarily to disrupt Complainant’s business,
which competes
with Respondent’s website, by siphoning Internet traffic away
from Complainant. See Surface
Protection Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001)
(finding that, given the competitive relationship between Complainant and
Respondent, Respondent
likely registered the contested domain name with the
intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion); 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).
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 <mapaucasino.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
James
A. Crary, Panelist
Dated:
March 1, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/385.html