Florists' Transworld Delivery, Inc. v. Millipede c/o Jonathan Nash
Claim Number: FA0810001227507
Complainant is Florists' Transworld Delivery, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Scott
J. Major, of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <ftdblog.com>, registered with Dotster.
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 electronically on October 2, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 3, 2008.
On October 2, 2008, Dotster confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ftdblog.com> domain name is registered with Dotster and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dotster has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotster 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 October 14, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 3, 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@ftdblog.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 6, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <ftdblog.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FTD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ftdblog.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <ftdblog.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Florists’ Transworld Delivery, Inc., is a flower-by-wire service that connects North American retail florists and participates in an international floral delivery network. As part of its business, Complainant has maintained a retail website at the <ftd.com> domain name. Complainant registered its FTD mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on February 20, 1968 (Reg. No. 844,748).
Respondent registered the <ftdblog.com> domain name on September 9, 2008. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parked website that displays links to floral services that directly compete with Complainant’s business.
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 provided evidence of the registration of its
FTD mark with the USPTO. The Panel finds
this registration sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in its FTD mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16,
2002) (“Under
Respondent’s <ftdblog.com>
domain name contains Complainant’s FTD mark with the addition of the generic
term “blog,” and the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds these additions do not
detract from the dominant portion of the disputed domain name, which is
Complainant’s FTD mark. Therefore, the
Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant must present a prima facie case to support these allegations before the burden shifts to Respondent to prove otherwise. The Panel finds Complainant has presented an adequate prima facie case to support its allegations and Respondent has failed to respond to these proceedings. Therefore, the Panel may conclude Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel, however, will examine the record and determine if evidence exists that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parked website displaying links to third-party websites that compete with Complainant’s floral services business. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also 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).
Complainant contends Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information and record do not reflect that Respondent has ever been known by the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to 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 Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays links to third-party websites that directly compete with Complainant’s floral services business. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).
In addition, Respondent presumably receives compensation in the form of click-through fees from its competing use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name. The Panel finds this is an attempt by Respondent to profit from the goodwill Complainant has established in its FTD mark, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”).
The Panel finds 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 <ftdblog.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: November 12,2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum