national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Associated Content  Inc. v. Jiri Capcuch

Claim Number: FA0908001281913

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Associated Content,  Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Ian V. O'Neill, of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA.  Respondent is Jiri Capcuch (“Respondent”), Czech Republic.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <asssociatedcontent.com>, registered with Go China Domains, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 27, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 28, 2009.

 

On August 28, 2009, Go China Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <asssociatedcontent.com> domain name is registered with Go China Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Go China Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go China Domains, 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 3, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 23, 2009 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@asssociatedcontent.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 30, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <asssociatedcontent.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ASSOCIATED CONTENT mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <asssociatedcontent.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <asssociatedcontent.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant operates an online publication platform, enabling independent writers to publish their original content and generate income.  Complainant promotes its services under the ASSOCIATED CONTENT mark, which Complainant registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on January 29, 2008 (Reg. No. 3,376,005).  Tens of thousands of independent writers utilize Complainant’s services, and millions of Internet visitors access the content on the platform.  Complainant has used the ASSOCIATED CONTENT mark continuously in commerce to provide its services since at least as early as 2005.

 

Respondent registered the <asssociatedcontent.com> domain name on March 18, 2009.  The disputed domain name resolves to a website that features links to third-party websites offering adult-oriented products and services.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the ASSOCIATED CONTENT mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,376,005 issued January 29, 2008).  See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. MS Tech. Inc., FA 198898 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2003) (“[O]nce the USPTO has made a determination that a mark is registrable, by so issuing a registration, as indeed was the case here, an ICANN panel is not empowered to nor should it disturb that determination.”).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent’s <asssociatedcontent.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its ASSOCIATED CONTENT mark.  The disputed domain name differs from Complainant’s mark in three ways: (1) the space has been removed from the mark; (2) a letter “s” has been added to the mark; and (3) the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” has been added to the end of the mark.  The Panel finds that under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), neither removing a space nor adding an extra letter renders the domain name different from the mark.  See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (concluding that the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s CLASSIC METAL ROOFS mark because changing the final term of the mark from “roofs” to “roofing” was a minor alteration and did not sufficiently distinguish the domain name from the mark); see also Myspace, Inc. v. Kang, FA 672160 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2006) (finding that the <myspce.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s MYSPACE mark and the slight difference in spelling did not reduce the confusing similarity).  Furthermore, the Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD does nothing to distinguish a domain name from a mark because all domain names must include a top-level domain.  See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) ( “[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).  Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not sufficiently distinguished from, and is confusingly similar to, Complainant’s ASSOCIATED CONTENT mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  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), thus shifting the burden of proof to Respondent.  Because Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  However, the Panel in its discretion chooses to examine the record to determine whether Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests pursuant to the factors outlined in Policy ¶ 4(c).  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 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.”).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <asssociatedcontent.com> domain name, nor has it ever been the owner or licensee of the ASSOCIATED CONTENT mark.  Respondent has been identified as “Jiri Capcuch,” and no evidence, in the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name or elsewhere, indicates that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Because Respondent has failed to show any evidence contrary to Complainant’s contentions and is not known by any variant of the ASSOCIATED CONTENT mark, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See America W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’  Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”); see also M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).

 

Respondent is using the <asssociatedcontent.com> domain name to host a website that links to third-party websites featuring adult-oriented content.  In accordance with previous panels, the Panel finds that this use by Respondent of the <asssociatedcontent.com> domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Am. Online, Inc. v. Boch, FA 209902 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent uses <aol-x.com> in connection with adult-oriented material, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) [and] (iii).”); see also InnoTown AS v. Forest, D2003-0718 (WIPO Oct. 27, 2003) (because there was “no immediate or apparent connection between the name selected by the Respondent and its web site offering links to various adult-oriented web sites” the panel inferred that the respondent registered the domain name to “secure its residual traffic” and held that this activity was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant contends, and the Panel presumes, that Respondent gains commercially from the diversion of Internet users to the third-party websites, as the Panel also presumes that Respondent is collecting “click-through” fees from the third-parties.  The Panel finds that Respondent is intentionally using the disputed domain name for commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, and so, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), this use is also evidence of Respondent’s registration and use in bad faith.  See Qwest Comm’ns Int’l Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 187431 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit from the misleading <qwestwirless.com> domain name by linking the domain name to adult oriented websites, gambling websites, and websites in competition with Complainant.  Respondent’s attempt to commercially benefit from the misleading domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Youtv, Inc. v. Alemdar, FA 94243 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent attracted users to his website for commercial gain and linked his website to adult-oriented websites).

 

Complainant also contends that Respondent’s association of the disputed domain name, registered on March 18, 2009, with adult-oriented websites is itself evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use, and the Panel agrees, finding that Respondent’s association with adult-oriented websites is evidence of registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent linked the domain name in question to websites displaying banner advertisements and adult-oriented material); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Party Night Inc., FA 144647 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2003) (finding that the 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.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <asssociatedcontent.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist

Dated:  October 12, 2009

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum