Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Mattel, Inc. v. E-Solutions Ltd. a/k/a
Wolfgang Wind
Claim
Number: FA0404000263415
Complainant is Mattel, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented
by William Dunnegan, of Perkins & Dunnegan,
45 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10111.
Respondent is E-Solutions Ltd. a/k/a Wolfgang Wind (“Respondent”), 72 Bond St., Suite 1710, Mayfair,
London W1S 1RR, Great Britain.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <teenbarbies.com>, registered with Tucows
Inc.
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.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 27, 2004; the
Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 28, 2004.
On
April 29, 2004, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <teenbarbies.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
April 30, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
May 20, 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@teenbarbies.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 28, 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.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <teenbarbies.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BARBIE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <teenbarbies.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <teenbarbies.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Mattel, Inc., is in the toy, clothing, and accessory business. Complainant holds numerous trademark
registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the BARBIE
mark, including
Reg. No. 728,811, issued March 20, 1962. Complainant has used the BARBIE mark
continuously and extensively in connection with its toy and clothing business.
Complainant uses
many domain names in connection to its BARBIE mark, including
<barbie.com>, <barbiecollectibles.com>,
and
<barbiecollectiblesstore.com>.
Respondent
registered the <teenbarbies.com> domain name on January 2, 1999,
and is using the domain name to redirect users to a directory of pornographic
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 with extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has rights in the
BARBIE mark through registration with
the United States Patent and Trademark
Office and by continuous use of its mark in commerce for at least the last
forty-two years. 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).
The domain name
registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BARBIE mark
because the domain name incorporates
Complainant’s mark and simply adds the
generic or descriptive term “teen” and the letter “s.” The mere addition of a generic or descriptive
word and the letter “s” to a registered mark does not negate the confusing
similarity
of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. ShopStarNetwork, FA 95404 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
14, 2000) (finding that combining the generic word “shop” with Complainant’s
registered mark “llbean”
does not circumvent Complainant’s rights in the mark
nor avoid the confusing similarity aspect of the ICANN Policy); 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); see also Blue Cross
& Blue Shield Ass’n v. InterActive Communications, Inc., D2000-0788
(WIPO Aug. 28, 2000) (finding that a domain name which merely adds the letter
‘s’ to Complainant’s mark is sufficiently
similar to the mark to cause a
likelihood of confusion among the users of Complainant’s services and those who
were to view a web
site provided by Respondent accessed through the contested
domain name).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has
alleged that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <teenbarbies.com>
domain name. Due to Respondent’s
failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel will assume that Respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name. In fact, once Complainant makes a prima
facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent
to show that it does have such rights to or legitimate interests
in the mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See
G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002)
(holding that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate
interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on
Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion
because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the
respondent”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with
respect to the domain,
the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates
its claim of rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name).
Moreover, where
Complainant makes the prima facie showing and Respondent does not
respond, the Panel may accept 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 Bayerische
Motoren Werke AG v. Bavarian AG, FA110830 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2002)
(finding that in the absence of a Response the Panel is free to make inferences
from
the very failure to respond and assign greater weight to certain
circumstances than it might otherwise do).
Respondent is
using the <teenbarbies.com> domain name to redirect Internet users
to a website that displays pornographic images and a directory of pornographic
websites. Respondent’s use of a domain
name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BARBIE mark to redirect
Internet users to a pornographic
website 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 Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost In
Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (finding that
Respondent’s use of its domain name to link unsuspecting Internet
traffic to an adult orientated website, containing images of scantily clad women
in provocative
poses, did not constitute a connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use); see also Paws,
Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 125368 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2002) (holding that
the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to an established mark
to
divert Internet users to an adult-oriented website “tarnishes Complainant’s
mark and does not evidence noncommercial or fair use
of the domain name by a
respondent”); see also Brown &
Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding
that infringing on another's well-known mark to provide a link to a
pornographic
site is not a legitimate or fair use).
Moreover,
Respondent offered no evidence and no proof in the record suggests that Respondent
is commonly known by the <teenbarbies.com> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See 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); see
also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone
Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or
legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed
domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair
use).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
intentionally registered a domain name that contains Complainant’s well-known
mark and did so for Respondent’s commercial
gain. Respondent’s domain name diverts users who seek Complainant’s
BARBIE mark to Respondent’s commercial website through the use of a
domain name
that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent is unfairly benefiting from the goodwill
associated with Complainant’s BARBIE mark.
Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain,
constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See Bank of America Corp. v. Out
Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating that
“[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s
marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive
quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become
confused as to
Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website” in holding
that the domain names were registered
and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv)); 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).
Furthermore,
while each of the four circumstances listed under Policy ¶ 4(b), if proven,
evidences bad faith use and registration
of a domain name, additional factors
can also be used to support findings of bad faith registration and use. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb.
Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been
registered in bad faith, the Panel
must look at the “totality of
circumstances”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“the examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b)
are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”).
Respondent’s
registration of a domain name that incorporates Complainant’s well-known
registered mark to attract users interested
in Complainant’s products to a
pornographic website is evidence that the Respondent registered the domain name
in bad faith. See Microsoft
Corp. v. Horner, D2002-0029 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2002) (holding that Respondent’s
use of Complainant’s mark to post pornographic photographs and to publicize
hyperlinks to additional pornographic websites evidenced bad faith use and
registration of the domain name); see also Six Continents Hotels,
Inc. v. Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO Mar. 4, 2003) (stating that “whatever the
motivation of Respondent, the diversion of the domain name to a pornographic
site is itself certainly consistent with the finding that the Domain Name was
registered and is being used in bad faith”); see also Wells Fargo
& Co. v. Party Night Inc. and Peter Carrington, FA 144647 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Mar. 18, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s
tarnishing use of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to adult-oriented websites was evidence
that the domain names were being used in bad faith).
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 <teenbarbies.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
John
J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: June 11, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/769.html