|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Nike, Inc. v. Henry Chan
Claim
Number: FA0404000250742
Complainant is Nike, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented
by Kenneth Kwartler, One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR
97005. Respondent is Henry Chan (“Respondent”), P.O. Box SS-6348/A124, Nassau, Bahamas.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <airforcenike.com>, <airjordannike.com>,
<nikeairforce1s.com>, <nikeclothes.com>, <nikefootbol.com>,
<nikeinc.com>, <nikejumpman.com>, <wwwnikefootball.com>,
<airnikes.com>, <freestylenike.com>, <futbolnike.com>,
<nikecommercials.com>, <gridironnike.com>, <nikefotbal.com>,
<nikefotboll.com>, <nikefreestyler.com>, <nikefreestyles.com>,
<nikefrestyle.com>, <nikefutbool.com>, <nikegidiron.com>,
<nikegirdiron.com>, <nikegirdon.com>, <nikegriddon.com>,
<nikegrideiron.com>, <nikegrideon.com>, <nikegrideron.com>,
<nikegridin.com>, <nikegridion.com>, <nikegridiorn.com>,
<nikegridirion.com>, <nikegridon.com>, <nikegridrion.com>,
<nikegridron.com>, <nikegriiron.com>, <nikegrindiron.com>,
<nikegrindon.com>, <nikesocer.com>, <niketow.com>
and <nikeytown.com>, registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.com.
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.
Hon.
Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 1, 2004; the Forum
received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 5, 2004.
On
April 2, 2004, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain names <airforcenike.com>, <airjordannike.com>,
<nikeairforce1s.com>, <nikeclothes.com>, <nikefootbol.com>,
<nikeinc.com>, <nikejumpman.com>, <wwwnikefootball.com>,
<airnikes.com>, <freestylenike.com>, <futbolnike.com>,
<nikecommercials.com>, <gridironnike.com>, <nikefotbal.com>,
<nikefotboll.com>, <nikefreestyler.com>, <nikefreestyles.com>,
<nikefrestyle.com>, <nikefutbool.com>, <nikegidiron.com>,
<nikegirdiron.com>, <nikegirdon.com>, <nikegriddon.com>,
<nikegrideiron.com>, <nikegrideon.com>, <nikegrideron.com>,
<nikegridin.com>, <nikegridion.com>, <nikegridiorn.com>,
<nikegridirion.com>, <nikegridon.com>, <nikegridrion.com>,
<nikegridron.com>, <nikegriiron.com>, <nikegrindiron.com>,
<nikegrindon.com>, <nikesocer.com>, <niketow.com>
and <nikeytown.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
April 13, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
May 3, 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@airforcenike.com, postmaster@airjordannike.com,
postmaster@nikeairforce1s.com, postmaster@nikeclothes.com, postmaster@nikefootbol.com,
postmaster@nikeinc.com, postmaster@nikejumpman.com, postmaster@wwwnikefootball.com,
postmaster@airnikes.com, postmaster@freestylenike.com,
postmaster@futbolnike.com,
postmaster@nikecommercials.com, postmaster@gridironnike.com, postmaster@nikefotbal.com,
postmaster@nikefotboll.com,
postmaster@nikefreestyler.com, postmaster@nikefreestyles.com,
postmaster@nikefrestyle.com, postmaster@nikefutbool.com, postmaster@nikegidiron.com,
postmaster@nikegirdiron.com, postmaster@nikegirdon.com, postmaster@nikegriddon.com,
postmaster@nikegrideiron.com, postmaster@nikegrideon.com,
postmaster@nikegrideron.com,
postmaster@nikegridin.com, postmaster@nikegridion.com, postmaster@nikegridiorn.com,
postmaster@nikegridirion.com,
postmaster@nikegridon.com, postmaster@nikegridrion.com,
postmaster@nikegridron.com, postmaster@nikegriiron.com, postmaster@nikegrindiron.com,
postmaster@nikegrindon.com, postmaster@nikesocer.com, postmaster@niketow.com
and postmaster@nikeytown.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
May 14, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon.
Ralph Yachnin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <airforcenike.com>,
<airjordannike.com>, <nikeairforce1s.com>, <nikeclothes.com>,
<nikefootbol.com>, <nikeinc.com>, <nikejumpman.com>,
<wwwnikefootball.com>, <airnikes.com>, <freestylenike.com>,
<futbolnike.com>, <nikecommercials.com>, <gridironnike.com>,
<nikefotbal.com>, <nikefotboll.com>, <nikefreestyler.com>,
<nikefreestyles.com>, <nikefrestyle.com>, <nikefutbool.com>,
<nikegidiron.com>, <nikegirdiron.com>, <nikegirdon.com>,
<nikegriddon.com>, <nikegrideiron.com>, <nikegrideon.com>,
<nikegrideron.com>, <nikegridin.com>, <nikegridion.com>,
<nikegridiorn.com>, <nikegridirion.com>, <nikegridon.com>,
<nikegridrion.com>, <nikegridron.com>, <nikegriiron.com>,
<nikegrindiron.com>, <nikegrindon.com>, <nikesocer.com>,
<niketow.com> and <nikeytown.com> domain names are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s NIKE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <airforcenike.com>, <airjordannike.com>,
<nikeairforce1s.com>, <nikeclothes.com>, <nikefootbol.com>,
<nikeinc.com>, <nikejumpman.com>, <wwwnikefootball.com>,
<airnikes.com>, <freestylenike.com>, <futbolnike.com>,
<nikecommercials.com>, <gridironnike.com>, <nikefotbal.com>,
<nikefotboll.com>, <nikefreestyler.com>, <nikefreestyles.com>,
<nikefrestyle.com>, <nikefutbool.com>, <nikegidiron.com>,
<nikegirdiron.com>, <nikegirdon.com>, <nikegriddon.com>,
<nikegrideiron.com>, <nikegrideon.com>, <nikegrideron.com>,
<nikegridin.com>, <nikegridion.com>, <nikegridiorn.com>,
<nikegridirion.com>, <nikegridon.com>, <nikegridrion.com>,
<nikegridron.com>, <nikegriiron.com>, <nikegrindiron.com>,
<nikegrindon.com>, <nikesocer.com>, <niketow.com>
and <nikeytown.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <airforcenike.com>,
<airjordannike.com>, <nikeairforce1s.com>, <nikeclothes.com>,
<nikefootbol.com>, <nikeinc.com>, <nikejumpman.com>,
<wwwnikefootball.com>, <airnikes.com>, <freestylenike.com>,
<futbolnike.com>, <nikecommercials.com>, <gridironnike.com>,
<nikefotbal.com>, <nikefotboll.com>, <nikefreestyler.com>,
<nikefreestyles.com>, <nikefrestyle.com>, <nikefutbool.com>,
<nikegidiron.com>, <nikegirdiron.com>, <nikegirdon.com>,
<nikegriddon.com>, <nikegrideiron.com>, <nikegrideon.com>,
<nikegrideron.com>, <nikegridin.com>, <nikegridion.com>,
<nikegridiorn.com>, <nikegridirion.com>, <nikegridon.com>,
<nikegridrion.com>, <nikegridron.com>, <nikegriiron.com>,
<nikegrindiron.com>, <nikegrindon.com>, <nikesocer.com>,
<niketow.com> and <nikeytown.com> domain names in bad
faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant is a
worldwide leader in sports and fitness.
Complainant designs, manufacturers and markets a broad range of athletic
footwear, apparel and equipment.
Complainant holds several registrations for the NIKE mark with the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including Reg. Nos.
978,952 and
1,153,938 (registered on February 19, 1974 and May 12, 1981,
respectively).
Respondent
registered the disputed domain names between October 1, 2002 and December 19,
2003. Respondent uses the domain names
to earn click-through fees by redirecting Internet users to commercial
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 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 NIKE mark 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 NIKE mark because each of
the domain names incorporates the mark.
The domain names merely add generic terms, or misspellings thereof, to
the mark. Some of the generic terms
describe Complainant’s business. The
addition of generic or descriptive terms is insufficient to distinguish the
domain names from Complainant’s 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 Space Imaging LLC v.
Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22,
2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines
Complainant’s mark with
a generic term that has an obvious relationship to
Complainant’s business).
Furthermore, the
addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” to the mark is irrelevant in
determining whether the domain names
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
mark. See 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); see also Rollerblade,
Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top
level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain
name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly
similar).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Due to
Respondent’s failure to provide a Response, the Panel accepts all reasonable
allegations and inferences in the Complaint as
true. See 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.”);
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).
Furthermore,
Respondent has failed to contest the allegations of the Complaint; therefore,
the Panel presumes that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the
domain names. See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp.,
D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which
could demonstrate any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); 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).
Nothing in the
record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by the domain names. Moreover, 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 names
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).
Complainant
asserts that Respondent uses the domain names to earn click-through fees by
redirecting Internet users to commercial websites. Due to Respondent’s failure to contest this assertion, the Panel
accepts the assertion as true.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s use of the domain names
does not constitute 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). See Black & Decker
Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002)
(holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet
users
to commercial websites, unrelated to Complainant and presumably with the
purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral
fee, did not evidence
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com,
D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in
the famous MSNBC mark where Respondent attempted to
profit using Complainant’s
mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
receives click-through fees from Internet vendors when Internet users access
the vendors’ commercial websites via the disputed domain names. Respondent’s commercial use of domain names
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark constitutes bad faith registration
and use pursuant
to 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 ESPN, Inc. v. Ballerini, FA 95410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000)
(finding bad faith where Respondent linked the domain name to another website
<iwin.com>,
presumably receiving a portion of the advertising revenue
from the site by directing Internet traffic there, thus using a domain
name to
attract Internet users 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 <airforcenike.com>, <airjordannike.com>,
<nikeairforce1s.com>, <nikeclothes.com>, <nikefootbol.com>,
<nikeinc.com>, <nikejumpman.com>, <wwwnikefootball.com>,
<airnikes.com>, <freestylenike.com>, <futbolnike.com>,
<nikecommercials.com>, <gridironnike.com>, <nikefotbal.com>,
<nikefotboll.com>, <nikefreestyler.com>, <nikefreestyles.com>,
<nikefrestyle.com>, <nikefutbool.com>, <nikegidiron.com>,
<nikegirdiron.com>, <nikegirdon.com>, <nikegriddon.com>,
<nikegrideiron.com>, <nikegrideon.com>, <nikegrideron.com>,
<nikegridin.com>, <nikegridion.com>, <nikegridiorn.com>,
<nikegridirion.com>, <nikegridon.com>, <nikegridrion.com>,
<nikegridron.com>, <nikegriiron.com>, <nikegrindiron.com>,
<nikegrindon.com>, <nikesocer.com>, <niketow.com>
and <nikeytown.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY ( Ret.)
Dated: May 24, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/566.html