MOUNT SAN JACINTO WINTER PARK AUTHORITY v. Dennis Montilepre
Claim Number: FA0808001222289
Complainant is MOUNT
SAN JACINTO WINTER PARK AUTHORITY (“Complainant”), represented by Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq., of Best Best & Krieger, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <palmspringstramway.info>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 26, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 27, 2008.
On August 28, 2008 and September 5, 2008, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <palmspringstramway.info> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, 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 September 22, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 13, 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@palmspringstramway.info by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 20, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <palmspringstramway.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PALM SPRINGS AERIAL TRAMWAY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <palmspringstramway.info> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <palmspringstramway.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Mount San Jacinto Winter Park Authority,
operates aerial transport services, tour guide services, and educational and
entertainment services under the PALM SPRINGS AERIAL TRAMWAY mark (Reg. No.
3,258,389 issued July 3, 2007 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”)). Complainant has operated an
aerial tramway since 1963 in order to make accessible remote mountain areas of
the Mount San Jacinto State Park within
Respondent registered the disputed <palmspringstramway.info> domain name on August 29, 2008. Respondent is currently using the disputed domain name to resolve to a parked webpage with unrelated links for third parties. Respondent offered to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant in return for registration costs and two-years’ worth of tramway passes.
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 has established sufficient rights in the PALM
SPRINGS AERIAL TRAMWAY mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration
of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the
mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures
Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal
trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
Respondent’s <palmspringstramway.info>
domain name contains Complainant’s PALM SPRINGS AERIAL TRAMWAY mark, while
omitting “aerial” and adding the generic top-level domain “.info.” The Panel finds that adding “.info” is
irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Trip
Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007)
(concluding that the addition of a gTLD, whether it be “.com,” “.net,” “.biz,”
or “.org,” is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). The Panel also finds that the removal of one
of the words from Complainant’s mark makes no meaningful alteration, because
the remainder of the disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s mark. See
Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt.
Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (holding that “the Domain
Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ‘TESCO PERSONAL FINANCE’ mark in
that it merely omits the descriptive term ‘personal.’”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶
4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has asserted that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant sets forth a prima facie case supporting its allegations, as it has in this case, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Respondent has failed to submit a response in this
proceeding, leaving the Panel bereft of any information to conclude that
Respondent is or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. What
remains for scrutiny is the registrant of record in the WHOIS information;
however such registrant is listed as “Dennis Montilepre.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Ian Schrager
Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369
(Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to
support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the
assertion must be rejected); see
also Tercent Inc. v. Lee 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).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website
wherein third-party advertisements for unrelated third parties are shown. Complainant asserts, and the Panel so infers,
that Respondent conducts this activity for commercial gain, through the receipt
of click-through fees. The Panel finds
this use to fail as a bona fide offering
of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Constellation Wines
The Panel finds that Respondent’s willingness to sell the
disputed domain name in return for registration costs and two years of tramway
passes constitutes a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶
4(a)(ii). See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704
(Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that a respondent’s willingness to sell
a domain name to the complainant suggests that a respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in that domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Mothers Against Drunk
Driving v. Hyun-Jun Shin, FA 154098 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (holding
that under the circumstances, the respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose
of its rights in the disputed domain name suggested that it lacked
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to
Complainant in return for registration costs and two years of tramway
passes. The Panel finds that this
willingness to sell the disputed domain name for consideration above and beyond
the costs of obtaining the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith
registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See
Respondent’s confusingly
similar disputed domain name resolves to a parked web page wherein third-party
links for unrelated goods and services are displayed. The Panel infers that Respondent receives a
commercial benefit via click-through fees, and that therefore Respondent has
intentionally created a likelihood of confusion between Complainant’s mark and
the disputed domain name. The Panel thus
finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the
<bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was
evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited
by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to third-party
websites); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5,
2007) (holding that the respondent was taking advantage of the confusing
similarity between the <lilpunk.com> domain name and the complainant’s
LIL PUNK mark by using the contested domain name to maintain a website with
various links to third-party websites unrelated to Complainant, and that such
use for the respondent’s own commercial gain demonstrated bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
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 <palmspringstramway.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: October 28, 2008
National
Arbitration Forum