Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v.
Alienvspredator Music Tracker
Claim Number: FA0407000296332
Complainant is Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“Complainant”),
represented by J. Del Barrio of Fox Group Legal, Intellectual Property
Dept., 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90067. Respondent is Alienvspredator Music Tracker (“Respondent”), 39 Franko Street,
Odessa 65020, Ukraine.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <alienvspredator.com>,
registered with Bulkregister, Llc.
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.
Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on July 13, 2004; the Forum
received a hard copy of the
Complaint on July 14, 2004.
On
July 14, 2004, Bulkregister, Llc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <alienvspredator.com>
is registered with Bulkregister, Llc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Bulkregister, Llc. has verified
that Respondent is
bound by the Bulkregister, Llc. 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
July 19, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
August 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@alienvspredator.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
August 16,2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 <alienvspredator.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s ALIEN, ALIENS VERSUS PREDATOR and PREDATOR marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <alienvspredator.com>
domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <alienvspredator.com> domain name
in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, is one of the world’s leading
entertainment and media companies.
Complainant produces and distributes some of the most internationally
well-known film and television properties.
In the 2003 fiscal year, Complainant’s filmed entertainment business
enjoyed over $662 million in operating income, which was a 36%
increase over
the previous year.
Complainant owns
two very popular series of motion pictures, “Alien” and “Predator.” Further, Complainant produced and
distributed a series of computer games related to these two groups of films
called “Alien vs. Predator.” In
addition, a highly anticipated “Alien vs. Predator” motion picture will be
released in August.
Complainant
holds numerous registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
for the ALIEN mark (Reg. No. 1,813,452
issued December 28, 1993, Reg. No.
1,807,443 issued November 30, 1993, Reg. No. 1,873,273 issued January 10, 1995,
Reg. No. 1,807,635
issued November 30, 1993, Reg. No. 2,077,767 issued July 8,
1997, Reg. No. 1,853,218 issued September 6, 1994, Reg. No. 1,776,826
issued
June 15, 1993), the ALIENS VERSUS PREDATOR mark (Reg. No. 2,371,262 issued July
25, 2000, and Reg. No. 2,825,241 issued March
23, 2004) and the PREDATOR mark
(Reg. No.1,870,549 issued December 27, 1994, Reg. No. 2,074,564 issued June 24,
1997, Reg. No. 1,872,002
issued January 3, 1995, Reg. No. 1,867,723 issued
December 13, 1994 and Reg. No. 1,767,716 issued April 27, 1993). Complainant holds over fifty-five trademark
applications and registrations for these marks worldwide.
Complainant’s
“Aliens vs. Predator” series of video games have sold over 350,000 units
worldwide and have generated approximately
$7 million in gross revenue
internationally.
Respondent
registered the <alienvspredator.com>
domain name on January 18, 2001.
Respondent currently uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet
users to a website that features a search engine and links
to movie-related
content, including sites which allow the illegal downloading of movies.
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
registrations for its ALIEN, ALIENS VERSUS PREDATOR and PREDATOR marks with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
and other worldwide registrations
establish Complainant’s rights in the marks.
See 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); see also Smart Design LLC v. Hughes,
D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000) (holding that ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not
require Complainant to demonstrate ‘exclusive rights,’
but only that
Complainant has a bona fide basis for making the Complaint in the first place);
see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.
Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does
not require that the mark be registered in the country in which Respondent
operates. It is sufficient that Complainant
can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
The <alienvspredator.com> domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because the only differences are
the use of the singular form of “alien”
and the highly recognized abbreviation
of “versus” which is “vs.” Using a
combination of a third party’s marks and using a well-known abbreviation does
not significantly differentiate the disputed
domain name from Complainant’s
mark. See Elder Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Recker, FA 98414 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept.
10, 2001) (“In the matter at bar it is beyond refute that Respondent’s domain
names are virtually
identical, and thus confusingly similar to Elder’s
trademarks. Any superficial differences between the domain names and the Elder
trademarks are de minimis and of no
legal consequence.”); see also Modern
Props, Inc. v. Wallis, FA 152458 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2003)
(“Notwithstanding the analysis by Respondent, ‘modprops’ is a contraction or
shorthand
for ‘Modern Props.’ ‘Mod’ cononotes [sic] ‘modern’ regardless of any
other dictionary meanings, so the names are substantially similar
in
meaning.”); see also Nintendo of Am. Inc.
v. Pokemon, D2000-1230 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding confusing similarity
where respondent combined Complainant’s POKEMON and PIKACHU marks
to form the
<pokemonpikachu.com> domain name).
Thus,
Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
In this
proceeding, Respondent has not offered a Response. The failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint may
function as an implicit admission that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name.
In addition, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations set forth
in the Complaint as true. 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 Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095
(Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond
allows all reasonable inferences of fact in
the allegations of Complainant to
be deemed true); see also Desotec N.V. v.
Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to
respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless
clearly contradicted by the evidence).
The only
evidence in the record that relates to the Panel’s determination of whether
Respondent is commonly known by the disputed
domain name is the WHOIS
registration information for the respective domain name. Even though the WHOIS information for the
domain name lists the domain name registrant as Alienvspredator Music Tracker,
there is
no evidence that Respondent was commonly known by this name prior to
the registration of the domain name. See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA
155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003)
(finding that Respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com>
domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS
contact information because there was “no
affirmative evidence before the Panel that Respondent was ever ‘commonly known
by’ the disputed domain name prior to
its registration of the disputed domain
name”); see also Web House USA, Inc. v. eDollarShop
Hostmaster, FA 155180 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 10, 2003) (finding that Respondent was not “commonly known by” the
<edollarshop.com> domain name, despite naming itself “eDollarShop,”
because Respondent’s website was almost identical to Complainant’s
“first in
use” website and infringed on Complainant’s marks); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Neiman-Marcus, FA 135048
(Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2003) (noting that “Complainant has established
itself as the sole holder of all rights and
legitimate interests in the NEIMAN
MARCUS mark,” in holding that Respondent was not commonly known by the
<neiman-marcus.net> name,
despite naming itself “Neiman-Marcus” in its WHOIS contact information).
Furthermore, the
<alienvspredator.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks and is used to redirect
Internet users to a website that offers links to
other websites, including
those that compete directly with Complainant.
Such use has consistently and frequently been found neither to be 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). See Computer
Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s website, which is blank but for links
to other websites, is
not a legitimate use of the domain names); see also Toronto-Dominion
Bank v. Karpachev, 188
F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that,
because Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause
confusion with Complainant's
website and marks, its use of the names was not in
connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s diversionary use of Complainant’s
marks to send Internet users
to a website which displayed a series of links,
some of which linked to competitors of Complainant, was not a bona fide
offering
of goods or services).
Complainant has
established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
using the disputed domain name to host a search engine and predominantly
features links to movie and game-related goods
and services. Complainant’s business is as an
entertainment and media company. The
Panel finds that, by creating confusion around Complainant’s ALIEN, ALIENS
VERSUS PREDATOR and PREDATOR marks, Respondent is attempting
to disrupt the
business of a competitor. Respondent’s
use of Complainant’s marks within its domain name to sell goods and services
similar to Complainant’s goods and services
is evidence of bad faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
See Surface Prot. 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); see also EthnicGrocer.com,
Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7,
2000) (finding that the minor degree of
variation from Complainant's marks suggests that Respondent, Complainant’s competitor,
registered
the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's
business).
Moreover,
Respondent presumably commercially benefits from using a domain name
confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, which is
evidence that Respondent registered
and uses the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8,
2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad
faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through Respondent’s registration and use
of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet
users to its fraudulent website by using Complainant’s famous marks and
likeness); see also 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 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).
Complainant has
established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <alienvspredator.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
August 26, 2004
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/969.html