Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Martin P. Stevens v. Modern
Limited-Cayman Web Development
Claim
Number: FA0403000250005
Complainant is Martin P. Stevens (“Complainant”), represented
by Brian P. Heneghan, 167 Washington Street, Norwell, MA
02061. Respondent is Modern Limited-Cayman Web Development
(“Respondent”), P.O. Box 908, Georgetown, Grand Cayman, KY.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <metaphoric.com>, registered with Address
Creation.
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 (the "Forum")
electronically on March 29, 2004; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 29, 2004.
On
April 3, 2004, Address Creation confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <metaphoric.com> is registered with Address Creation
and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Address Creation has
verified that
Respondent is bound by the Address Creation 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 5, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
April 26, 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@metaphoric.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 5, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a
single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Tyrus
R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <metaphoric.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s METAPHORIC mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <metaphoric.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <metaphoric.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant, Martin P. Stevens, is in the video and motion
production and distribution business.
Complainant
holds a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the
METAPHORIC mark (Reg. No. 2,688,484, issued
February 18, 2003). Complainant
first used the METAPHORIC mark in commerce in 1991.
Respondent
registered the domain name <metaphoric.com> on September 26, 2000.
Respondent is using the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website
that offers directory and search
services as well as pop-up advertisements.
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.
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent is
using the <metaphoric.com> domain name to divert Internet traffic
to a website that offers directory and search services, and unrelated pop-up
advertisements.
Respondent’s use of a domain name that is identical to
Complainant’s METAPHORIC mark to redirect Internet users interested in
Complainant’s
goods and services to a commercial website that offers directory
and search services, and unrelated pop-up advertisements, is not
a use in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use of the domain name pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of America 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 it lacked rights or
legitimate interests in the domain
name); see also Geoffrey, Inc. v.
Toyrus.com, FA 150406 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 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); see also Tercent Inc.
v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name to host a series of hyperlinks and a banner advertisement
was neither a
bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the domain name); see also eBay Inc. v. Sunho
Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the "use of
complainant’s entire mark in infringing domain names makes it difficult
to
infer a legitimate use").
Moreover,
Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no proof in the record
suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the
<metaphoric.com>
domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). 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 interests
where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark
and never applied for a
license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
is a known cybersquatter with a history of registering domain names that
infringe upon others’ registered marks. Respondent
has registered over 2,200
domain names and has been the subject of numerous domain name disputes
including the following:
1)
Boeringer
Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Limited-Cayman Web Development, FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum January 9,
2003);
2)
Georgia
Boot LLC v. Modern Limited-Cayman Web Development, FA 149173 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 21,
2003);
3)
The
Sportmen’s Guide, Inc. v. Modern Limited-Cayman Islands, D2003-0305 (WIPO June 18, 2003);
4)
Barrett
Enterprises Group v. Modern Limited-Cayman Web Development, FA 162191 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28,
2003);
5)
Four other
domain name disputes, FA 178222, FA 204063, FA 215371, and FA 218903.
The
Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in
order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its
mark in a corresponding domain
name through a pattern of such conduct. Registration and use of a domain name
to prevent Complainant
from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name
through a pattern of such conduct evidences bad faith registration and use
of a
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. v. Shedon.com, D2000-0753 (Sept. 6,
2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent engaged in the practice of
registering domain names containing the
trademarks of others); see also Gamesville.com, Inc. v. Zuccarini,
FA 95294 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that Respondent engaged in a
pattern of conduct of registering domain names to
prevent the owner of the
trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, which is
evidence of registration and
use in bad faith); see also America Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com,
FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding a bad faith pattern of
conduct where Respondent registered many domain names unrelated
to its business
which infringe on famous marks and websites).
Furthermore,
Respondent registered the domain name for its own commercial gain. Respondent’s
domain name diverts Internet users who
intend to search under Complainant’s
mark to a website sponsored by Respondent that features directory and search
services, and unrelated
pop-up advertisements. This practice of diversion for
commercial gain evidences bad faith registration and use of a domain name
pursuant
to the Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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 Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp.,
FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent
registered and used an infringing domain name to attract
users to a website
sponsored by Respondent); 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 <metaphoric.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated:
May 17, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/589.html