Quepasa Corporation v. Martin Gondra
Claim Number: FA0807001214615
Complainant is Quepasa Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Adam
Stegge, of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <quepasaenla.com>, <quepasaenamerica.com>, <quepasaenlasvegas.com>, <quepasaenusa.com>, <quepasahoy.com>, <quepasainamerica.com>, <quepasainlasvegas.com>, <quepasainusa.com>, <quepasainla.com>, <quepasainchicago.com>, <quepasaincolombia.com>, <quepasaenargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaencolombia.com>, <quepasaendallas.com>, <quepasaendenver.com>, <quepasaendetroit.com>, <quepasaenespana.com>, <quepasaenfresno.com>, <quepasaenhouston.com>, <quepasaenjersey.com>, <quepasaenmexico.com>, <quepasaenneworleans.com>, <quepasaenny.com>, <quepasaenphoenix.com>, <quepasaenriverside.com>, <quepasaensa.com>, <quepasaensanjose.com>, <quepasaensd.com>, <quepasaensf.com>, <quepasaentampa.com>, <quepasaentucson.com>, <quepasaenwashington.com>, <quepasainargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaindallas.com>, <quepasaindenver.com>, <quepasaindetroit.com>, <quepasainespana.com>, <quepasainfresno.com>, <quepasainhouston.com>, <quepasainjersey.com>, <quepasainmexico.com>, <quepasainmiami.com>, <quepasainneworleans.com>, <quepasainny.com>, <quepasainsd.com>, <quepasainseattle.com>, <quepasainsf.com>, <quepasaintampa.com>, <quepasaintucson.com>, <quepasainwashington.com>, <quepasainorlando.com>, <quepasainphoenix.com>, <quepasainriverside.com>, <quepasainsa.com>, and <quepasainsanjose.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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 9, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 14, 2008.
On July 10, 2008, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <quepasaenla.com>, <quepasaenamerica.com>, <quepasaenlasvegas.com>, <quepasaenusa.com>, <quepasahoy.com>, <quepasainamerica.com>, <quepasainlasvegas.com>, <quepasainusa.com>, <quepasainla.com>, <quepasainchicago.com>, <quepasaincolombia.com>, <quepasaenargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaencolombia.com>, <quepasaendallas.com>, <quepasaendenver.com>, <quepasaendetroit.com>, <quepasaenespana.com>, <quepasaenfresno.com>, <quepasaenhouston.com>, <quepasaenjersey.com>, <quepasaenmexico.com>, <quepasaenneworleans.com>, <quepasaenny.com>, <quepasaenphoenix.com>, <quepasaenriverside.com>, <quepasaensa.com>, <quepasaensanjose.com>, <quepasaensd.com>, <quepasaensf.com>, <quepasaentampa.com>, <quepasaentucson.com>, <quepasaenwashington.com>, <quepasainargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaindallas.com>, <quepasaindenver.com>, <quepasaindetroit.com>, <quepasainespana.com>, <quepasainfresno.com>, <quepasainhouston.com>, <quepasainjersey.com>, <quepasainmexico.com>, <quepasainmiami.com>, <quepasainneworleans.com>, <quepasainny.com>, <quepasainsd.com>, <quepasainseattle.com>, <quepasainsf.com>, <quepasaintampa.com>, <quepasaintucson.com>, <quepasainwashington.com>, <quepasainorlando.com>, <quepasainphoenix.com>, <quepasainriverside.com>, <quepasainsa.com>, and <quepasainsanjose.com> domain names are registered with Tucows Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 July
18, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
August 7, 2008
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@quepasaenla.com, postmaster@quepasaenamerica.com, postmaster@quepasaenlasvegas.com, postmaster@quepasaenusa.com, postmaster@quepasahoy.com, postmaster@quepasainamerica.com, postmaster@quepasainlasvegas.com, postmaster@quepasainusa.com, postmaster@quepasainla.com, postmaster@quepasainchicago.com, postmaster@quepasaincolombia.com, postmaster@quepasaenargentina.com, postmaster@quepasainbaja.com, postmaster@quepasaencolombia.com, postmaster@quepasaendallas.com, postmaster@quepasaendenver.com, postmaster@quepasaendetroit.com, postmaster@quepasaenespana.com, postmaster@quepasaenfresno.com, postmaster@quepasaenhouston.com, postmaster@quepasaenjersey.com, postmaster@quepasaenmexico.com, postmaster@quepasaenneworleans.com, postmaster@quepasaenny.com, postmaster@quepasaenphoenix.com, postmaster@quepasaenriverside.com, postmaster@quepasaensa.com, postmaster@quepasaensanjose.com, postmaster@quepasaensd.com, postmaster@quepasaensf.com, postmaster@quepasaentampa.com, postmaster@quepasaentucson.com, postmaster@quepasaenwashington.com, postmaster@quepasainargentina.com, postmaster@quepasainbaja.com, postmaster@quepasaindallas.com, postmaster@quepasaindenver.com, postmaster@quepasaindetroit.com, postmaster@quepasainespana.com, postmaster@quepasainfresno.com, postmaster@quepasainhouston.com, postmaster@quepasainjersey.com, postmaster@quepasainmexico.com, postmaster@quepasainmiami.com, postmaster@quepasainneworleans.com, postmaster@quepasainny.com, postmaster@quepasainsd.com, postmaster@quepasainseattle.com, postmaster@quepasainsf.com, postmaster@quepasaintampa.com, postmaster@quepasaintucson.com, postmaster@quepasainwashington.com, postmaster@quepasainorlando.com, postmaster@quepasainphoenix.com, postmaster@quepasainriverside.com, postmaster@quepasainsa.com, and postmaster@quepasainsanjose.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 13, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 <quepasaenla.com>, <quepasaenamerica.com>, <quepasaenlasvegas.com>, <quepasaenusa.com>, <quepasahoy.com>, <quepasainamerica.com>, <quepasainlasvegas.com>, <quepasainusa.com>, <quepasainla.com>, <quepasainchicago.com>, <quepasaincolombia.com>, <quepasaenargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaencolombia.com>, <quepasaendallas.com>, <quepasaendenver.com>, <quepasaendetroit.com>, <quepasaenespana.com>, <quepasaenfresno.com>, <quepasaenhouston.com>, <quepasaenjersey.com>, <quepasaenmexico.com>, <quepasaenneworleans.com>, <quepasaenny.com>, <quepasaenphoenix.com>, <quepasaenriverside.com>, <quepasaensa.com>, <quepasaensanjose.com>, <quepasaensd.com>, <quepasaensf.com>, <quepasaentampa.com>, <quepasaentucson.com>, <quepasaenwashington.com>, <quepasainargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaindallas.com>, <quepasaindenver.com>, <quepasaindetroit.com>, <quepasainespana.com>, <quepasainfresno.com>, <quepasainhouston.com>, <quepasainjersey.com>, <quepasainmexico.com>, <quepasainmiami.com>, <quepasainneworleans.com>, <quepasainny.com>, <quepasainsd.com>, <quepasainseattle.com>, <quepasainsf.com>, <quepasaintampa.com>, <quepasaintucson.com>, <quepasainwashington.com>, <quepasainorlando.com>, <quepasainphoenix.com>, <quepasainriverside.com>, <quepasainsa.com>, and <quepasainsanjose.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUEPASA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <quepasaenla.com>, <quepasaenamerica.com>, <quepasaenlasvegas.com>, <quepasaenusa.com>, <quepasahoy.com>, <quepasainamerica.com>, <quepasainlasvegas.com>, <quepasainusa.com>, <quepasainla.com>, <quepasainchicago.com>, <quepasaincolombia.com>, <quepasaenargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaencolombia.com>, <quepasaendallas.com>, <quepasaendenver.com>, <quepasaendetroit.com>, <quepasaenespana.com>, <quepasaenfresno.com>, <quepasaenhouston.com>, <quepasaenjersey.com>, <quepasaenmexico.com>, <quepasaenneworleans.com>, <quepasaenny.com>, <quepasaenphoenix.com>, <quepasaenriverside.com>, <quepasaensa.com>, <quepasaensanjose.com>, <quepasaensd.com>, <quepasaensf.com>, <quepasaentampa.com>, <quepasaentucson.com>, <quepasaenwashington.com>, <quepasainargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaindallas.com>, <quepasaindenver.com>, <quepasaindetroit.com>, <quepasainespana.com>, <quepasainfresno.com>, <quepasainhouston.com>, <quepasainjersey.com>, <quepasainmexico.com>, <quepasainmiami.com>, <quepasainneworleans.com>, <quepasainny.com>, <quepasainsd.com>, <quepasainseattle.com>, <quepasainsf.com>, <quepasaintampa.com>, <quepasaintucson.com>, <quepasainwashington.com>, <quepasainorlando.com>, <quepasainphoenix.com>, <quepasainriverside.com>, <quepasainsa.com>, and <quepasainsanjose.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <quepasaenla.com>, <quepasaenamerica.com>, <quepasaenlasvegas.com>, <quepasaenusa.com>, <quepasahoy.com>, <quepasainamerica.com>, <quepasainlasvegas.com>, <quepasainusa.com>, <quepasainla.com>, <quepasainchicago.com>, <quepasaincolombia.com>, <quepasaenargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaencolombia.com>, <quepasaendallas.com>, <quepasaendenver.com>, <quepasaendetroit.com>, <quepasaenespana.com>, <quepasaenfresno.com>, <quepasaenhouston.com>, <quepasaenjersey.com>, <quepasaenmexico.com>, <quepasaenneworleans.com>, <quepasaenny.com>, <quepasaenphoenix.com>, <quepasaenriverside.com>, <quepasaensa.com>, <quepasaensanjose.com>, <quepasaensd.com>, <quepasaensf.com>, <quepasaentampa.com>, <quepasaentucson.com>, <quepasaenwashington.com>, <quepasainargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaindallas.com>, <quepasaindenver.com>, <quepasaindetroit.com>, <quepasainespana.com>, <quepasainfresno.com>, <quepasainhouston.com>, <quepasainjersey.com>, <quepasainmexico.com>, <quepasainmiami.com>, <quepasainneworleans.com>, <quepasainny.com>, <quepasainsd.com>, <quepasainseattle.com>, <quepasainsf.com>, <quepasaintampa.com>, <quepasaintucson.com>, <quepasainwashington.com>, <quepasainorlando.com>, <quepasainphoenix.com>, <quepasainriverside.com>, <quepasainsa.com>, and <quepasainsanjose.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Quepasa Corporation, operates one of the world’s largest bicultural Latino online social communities, and provides services such as information regarding entertainment, sports, health and fitness, and social networks. Complainant holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the QUEPASA mark. Complainant identified the following registrations in its Complaint and supporting documentation: Registration Number 2,318,469 issued February 15, 2000; Registration Number 3,094,934 issued May 23, 2006; Registration Number 3,290,186 issued September 11, 2007; and Registration Number 3,306,020 issued October 9, 2007. Complainant also holds the registration of the <quepasa.com> domain name and manages the resolving website.
Respondent, Martin Gondra, registered the disputed domain names at various times. Respondent first registered the <quepasainla.com> domain name on February 22, 2004, and then registered the <quepasaenamerica.com>, <quepasainamerica.com>, <quepasaenlasvegas.com>, <quepasainlasvegas.com>, <quepasaenusa.com>, <quepasainusa.com>, and <quepasahoy.com> domain names on September 13, 2007. Respondent registered the remaining forty-nine domain names October 16, 2007. Respondent is using the <quepasainla.com>, <quepasainusa.com>, and <quepasainlasvegas.com> domain names to provide Spanish advertisements, videos, music, and articles. Respondent is using the remaining disputed domain names to display a list of hyperlinks advertising Complainant’s competitors.
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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); 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.”).
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 asserts rights in the QUEPASA mark based on its
USPTO trademark registrations evidenced in the Complaint. Based on case precedent, the Panel finds this
evidence sufficient to confer rights in the QUEPASA mark to Complainant for the
purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Malain, FA 705262 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2006)
(“Complainant’s registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM
mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see
also Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. v. David Mizer Enters., Inc., FA 622122 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr.
14, 2006) (finding that the complainant’s registration with the USPTO for the
Respondent’s disputed domain names all incorporate Complainant’s QUEPASA mark in its entirety and add a geographic identifier or its abbreviation, as well as the generic top-level domain “.com.” Previous panels have found that such changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark, and this Panel agrees. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUEPASA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Net2phone Inc. v. Netcall SAGL, D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <net2phone-europe.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because “the combination of a geographic term with the mark does not prevent a domain name from being found confusingly similar"); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . . .").
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the elements
of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Based upon the allegations made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Accordingly, the burden shifts to Respondent. See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). Since Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, the Panel chooses to examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant contends that Respondent has never been commonly
known by QUEPASA or the disputed domain names.
Indeed, the WHOIS information identifying Respondent as “Martin Gondra”
supports Complainant’s contention.
Absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel concludes that Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and therefore lacks rights and
legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown
Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v.
Snowden, FA 715089
(Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the
respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name
where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information,
suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also
Respondent is using three of the disputed domain names to
post Spanish advertisements, videos, music, and articles. These offerings compete with those provided
by Complainant. Respondent is using the
remaining disputed domain names to display a list of hyperlinks advertising
Complainant’s competitors. Respondent is
presumably commercially gaining from these uses, both directly through its own offerings and circumstantially in the form of
click-through fees with respect to its advertised hyperlinks. The Panel finds that neither of these uses
constitutes a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and undoubtedly do not qualify
as legitimate noncommercial or fair uses pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coryn Group,
Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that
the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering
of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the
respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered
services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding
that the respondent was not using a disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services
or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by redirecting Internet users to a
commercial search engine website with links to multiple websites that may be of
interest to the complainant’s customers and presumably earning “click-through
fees” in the process).
Based on the above analysis,
the Panel concludes that Complainant has established a prima facie case, and Respondent cannot establish rights or
legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶¶¶ 4(c)(i), (ii), or (iii). Thus, Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been
satisfied.
Respondent registered and is using fifty-seven disputed
domain names containing multiple derivations of Complainant’s QUEPASA
mark. This clearly prevents Complainant
from reflecting its mark in domain names.
As such, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
See Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v.
JAZ Assocs.,
FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated
Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names
that infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Deiana, FA 339579 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22,
2004) (“It is
found and determined that Respondent is in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because Respondent registered the disputed domain
names to prevent Complainant from reflecting its YAHOO! mark
in the corresponding domain names. The
registration of the [<ayhooo.com>, <ayhooo.net >,
<ayhooo.org>, <ayhoooindia.com>, <ayhoookids.com>, <ayhooorealty.com>,
<ayhooorealty.net>, <ayhoooshopping.com>, <ayhooo-uk.com>,
and <searchayhooo.com>] domain names herein constitutes a pattern
of registering trademark-related domain names in bad faith.”).
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) relates to competing uses of a disputed domain name with the intent to disrupt a complainant’s business by diverting Internet users to the complainant’s competitors. Whether a respondent accomplishes this through competing directly or by advertising or promoting the complainant’s competitors is irrelevant so long as the use potentially disrupts the complainant’s business. Thus, in this case, both Respondent’s own competing use, as well as its advertising of Complainant’s competitors, constitute bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. MCM Tours, Inc., FA 444510 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2005) (“The Respondent is a travel agency and thus operates in the same business as the Complainant. The parties can therefore be considered as competitors. The Panel thus finds that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, which constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iii).”); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) when the disputed domain name resolved to a website that displayed commercial links to the websites of the complainant’s competitors).
Respondent’s uses of the disputed domain names are also
likely to create confusion among customers searching for Complainant’s
services. Specifically, customers may
become confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of
the competing services or advertised hyperlinks on the websites resolving from
the disputed domain names. It is
apparent that Respondent is attempting to profit off the goodwill associated
with Complainant’s QUEPASA mark, and these factors considered together
demonstrate bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used
the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was commercially gaining from
the likelihood of confusion between the complainant’s AIM mark and the
competing instant messaging products and services advertised on the
respondent’s website which resolved from the disputed domain name);
see also BPI Comm’cns, Inc. v. Boogie TV LLC, FA 105755 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Apr. 30, 2002) (“Complainants are in the music and entertainment
business. The links associated with
<billboard.tv> and <boogie.tv> appear to be in competition for the
same Internet users, which Complainants are trying to attract with the
<billboard.com> web site. There is
clearly a likelihood of confusion between <billboard.tv> and BILLBOARD as
to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or of a
product or service on the web site.”).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <quepasaenla.com>, <quepasaenamerica.com>, <quepasaenlasvegas.com>, <quepasaenusa.com>, <quepasahoy.com>, <quepasainamerica.com>, <quepasainlasvegas.com>, <quepasainusa.com>, <quepasainla.com>, <quepasainchicago.com>, <quepasaincolombia.com>, <quepasaenargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaencolombia.com>, <quepasaendallas.com>, <quepasaendenver.com>, <quepasaendetroit.com>, <quepasaenespana.com>, <quepasaenfresno.com>, <quepasaenhouston.com>, <quepasaenjersey.com>, <quepasaenmexico.com>, <quepasaenneworleans.com>, <quepasaenny.com>, <quepasaenphoenix.com>, <quepasaenriverside.com>, <quepasaensa.com>, <quepasaensanjose.com>, <quepasaensd.com>, <quepasaensf.com>, <quepasaentampa.com>, <quepasaentucson.com>, <quepasaenwashington.com>, <quepasainargentina.com>, <quepasainbaja.com>, <quepasaindallas.com>, <quepasaindenver.com>, <quepasaindetroit.com>, <quepasainespana.com>, <quepasainfresno.com>, <quepasainhouston.com>, <quepasainjersey.com>, <quepasainmexico.com>, <quepasainmiami.com>, <quepasainneworleans.com>, <quepasainny.com>, <quepasainsd.com>, <quepasainseattle.com>, <quepasainsf.com>, <quepasaintampa.com>, <quepasaintucson.com>, <quepasainwashington.com>, <quepasainorlando.com>, <quepasainphoenix.com>, <quepasainriverside.com>, <quepasainsa.com>, and <quepasainsanjose.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: August 26, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum