Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Gu Bei
Claim Number: FA0909001284140
Complainant is Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by J.
Andrew Coombs, of J. Andrew Coombs, A Professional
Corporation,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <disneycaliforniaadventure.com>, <disaneychannle.com>, <disanychannle.com>, <disentchannel.com>, <disenychanne.com>, <diseychanell.com>, <disnecanl.com>, <disnenchannel.com>, <disneychaael.com>, <disneychanele.com>, <disneycruiselines.com>, <disneyemployment.com>, <disneyhcannel.com>, <disneyswan.com>, <disneyvacationpackage.com>, <disnneychannnel.com>, <disnycanal.com>, <disnypornland.com>, <dissne.com>, <disyneychannel.com>, <wwdisneychannel.com>, <waltdisneycruises.com>, <toondineyindia.com>, <toondinsy.com>, <toondisneygames.com>, <toondisniey.com>, <toondisnney.com>, <toondysney.com>, <tooondisney.com>, <playhousedisneey.com>, <playhousedisneychannelasia.com>, <plaayhousedisney.com>, and <freedisneyporn.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
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.
James A. Crary as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 11, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 15, 2009.
On September 15, 2009, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <disneycaliforniaadventure.com>, <disaneychannle.com>, <disanychannle.com>, <disentchannel.com>, <disenychanne.com>, <diseychanell.com>, <disnecanl.com>, <disnenchannel.com>, <disneychaael.com>, <disneychanele.com>, <disneycruiselines.com>, <disneyemployment.com>, <disneyhcannel.com>, <disneyswan.com>, <disneyvacationpackage.com>, <disnneychannnel.com>, <disnycanal.com>, <disnypornland.com>, <dissne.com>, <disyneychannel.com>, <wwdisneychannel.com>, <waltdisneycruises.com>, <toondineyindia.com>, <toondinsy.com>, <toondisneygames.com>, <toondisniey.com>, <toondisnney.com>, <toondysney.com>, <tooondisney.com>, <playhousedisneey.com>, <playhousedisneychannelasia.com>, <plaayhousedisney.com>, and <freedisneyporn.com> domain names are registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com 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, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 13, 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@disneycaliforniaadventure.com, postmaster@disaneychannle.com, postmaster@disanychannle.com, postmaster@disentchannel.com, postmaster@disenychanne.com, postmaster@diseychanell.com, postmaster@disnecanl.com, postmaster@disnenchannel.com, postmaster@disneychaael.com, postmaster@disneychanele.com, postmaster@disneycruiselines.com, postmaster@disneyemployment.com, postmaster@disneyhcannel.com, postmaster@disneyswan.com, postmaster@disneyvacationpackage.com, postmaster@disnneychannnel.com, postmaster@disnycanal.com, postmaster@disnypornland.com, postmaster@dissne.com, postmaster@disyneychannel.com, postmaster@wwdisneychannel.com, postmaster@waltdisneycruises.com, postmaster@toondineyindia.com, postmaster@toondinsy.com, postmaster@toondisneygames.com, postmaster@toondisniey.com, postmaster@toondisnney.com, postmaster@toondysney.com, postmaster@tooondisney.com, postmaster@playhousedisneey.com, postmaster@playhousedisneychannelasia.com, postmaster@plaayhousedisney.com, and postmaster@freedisneyporn.com 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, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Crary 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 <disneycaliforniaadventure.com>, <disaneychannle.com>, <disanychannle.com>, <disentchannel.com>, <disenychanne.com>, <diseychanell.com>, <disnecanl.com>, <disnenchannel.com>, <disneychaael.com>, <disneychanele.com>, <disneycruiselines.com>, <disneyemployment.com>, <disneyhcannel.com>, <disneyswan.com>, <disneyvacationpackage.com>, <disnneychannnel.com>, <disnycanal.com>, <disnypornland.com>, <dissne.com>, <disyneychannel.com>, <wwdisneychannel.com>, <waltdisneycruises.com>, <toondineyindia.com>, <toondinsy.com>, <toondisneygames.com>, <toondisniey.com>, <toondisnney.com>, <toondysney.com>, <tooondisney.com>, <playhousedisneey.com>, <playhousedisneychannelasia.com>, <plaayhousedisney.com>, and <freedisneyporn.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <disneycaliforniaadventure.com>, <disaneychannle.com>, <disanychannle.com>, <disentchannel.com>, <disenychanne.com>, <diseychanell.com>, <disnecanl.com>, <disnenchannel.com>, <disneychaael.com>, <disneychanele.com>, <disneycruiselines.com>, <disneyemployment.com>, <disneyhcannel.com>, <disneyswan.com>, <disneyvacationpackage.com>, <disnneychannnel.com>, <disnycanal.com>, <disnypornland.com>, <dissne.com>, <disyneychannel.com>, <wwdisneychannel.com>, <waltdisneycruises.com>, <toondineyindia.com>, <toondinsy.com>, <toondisneygames.com>, <toondisniey.com>, <toondisnney.com>, <toondysney.com>, <tooondisney.com>, <playhousedisneey.com>, <playhousedisneychannelasia.com>, <plaayhousedisney.com>, and <freedisneyporn.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <disneycaliforniaadventure.com>, <disaneychannle.com>, <disanychannle.com>, <disentchannel.com>, <disenychanne.com>, <diseychanell.com>, <disnecanl.com>, <disnenchannel.com>, <disneychaael.com>, <disneychanele.com>, <disneycruiselines.com>, <disneyemployment.com>, <disneyhcannel.com>, <disneyswan.com>, <disneyvacationpackage.com>, <disnneychannnel.com>, <disnycanal.com>, <disnypornland.com>, <dissne.com>, <disyneychannel.com>, <wwdisneychannel.com>, <waltdisneycruises.com>, <toondineyindia.com>, <toondinsy.com>, <toondisneygames.com>, <toondisniey.com>, <toondisnney.com>, <toondysney.com>, <tooondisney.com>, <playhousedisneey.com>, <playhousedisneychannelasia.com>, <plaayhousedisney.com>, and <freedisneyporn.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Disney Enterprises, Inc. is a worldwide leading producer of children’s entertainment goods and services such as movies, television programs, books, and merchandise. Complainant owns hundreds of registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the DISNEY family of marks (e.g., Reg. No. 1,162,727 issued on July 28, 1981) in association with producing children’s entertainment.
Respondent registered the <disneycaliforniaadventure.com>, <disanychannle.com>, <disnycanal.com>, <dissne.com>, <toondisneygames.com>, <tooondisney.com>, and <disneychaael.com> domain names on November 9, 2005, the <disaneychannle.com>, <disentchannel.com>, <disnecanl.com>, <disnenchannel.com>, <disyneychannel.com>, <toondisnney.com>, and <diseychanell.com> domain names on November 26, 2005, the <disenychanne.com>, <toondinsy.com>, and <toondysney.com> domain names on November 27, 2005, the <disneychanele.com> domain name on May 24, 2008, the <disneycruiselines.com> domain name on December 24, 2008, the <disneyemployment.com> domain name on October 25, 2007, the <disneyhcannel.com> domain name on August 2, 2007, the <disneyswan.com>domain name on November 4, 2005, the <disneyvacationpackage.com> domain name on February 9, 2000, the <disnneychannnel.com> domain name on March 2, 2008, the <disnypornland.com> domain name on May 17, 2007, the <wwdisneychannel.com> and <plaayhousedisney.com> domain names on October 25, 2006, the <waltdisneycruises.com> domain name on October 28, 2007, the <toondineyindia.com> domain name on March 18, 2006, the <toondisniey.com> domain name on October 1, 2005, the <playhousedisneey.com> domain name on March 18, 2008, the <playhousedisneychannelasia.com> domain name on July 3, 2006, and the <freedisneyporn.com> domain name on February 16, 2006. Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to website displaying third-party links to websites in competition with Complainant.
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 owns hundreds of registrations with the USPTO for the DISNEY family of marks (e.g., Reg. No. 1,162,727 issued on July 28, 1981). Complainant has established rights in the DISNEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO. 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.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Each of Respondent’s disputed domain names contains the DISNEY mark or a misspelled version of the DISNEY mark. The Panel finds the use of a registered mark, even a misspelled registered mark, in a disputed domain name creates a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks). In addition, Respondent’s <disneycaliforniaadventure.com>, <disaneychannle.com>, <disanychannle.com>, <disentchannel.com>, <disenychanne.com>, <diseychanell.com>, <disnecanl.com>, <disnenchannel.com>, <disneychaael.com>, <disneychanele.com>, <disneycruiselines.com>, <disneyemployment.com>, <disneyhcannel.com>, <disneyswan.com>, <disneyvacationpackage.com>, <disnneychannnel.com>, <disnycanal.com>, <disnypornland.com>, <disyneychannel.com>, <wwdisneychannel.com>, <waltdisneycruises.com>, <toondineyindia.com>, <toondinsy.com>, <toondisneygames.com>, <toondisniey.com>, <toondisnney.com>, <toondysney.com>, <tooondisney.com>, <playhousedisneey.com>, <playhousedisneychannelasia.com>, <plaayhousedisney.com>, and <freedisneyporn.com> domain names each contain one or more generic, descriptive, and geographic terms. The Panel finds that the addition of generic, descriptive, and geographic terms fail to create a distinctive characteristic in a disputed domain name. See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Disney Enter. v. Kudrna, FA 686103 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the alterations to the complainant’s DISNEY mark in the respondent’s <finestdisneyhomes.com> domain name are insufficient to differentiate the domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)), see also Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. S G, D2001-0432 (WIPO May 22, 2001) (finding that the domain names <sunkistgrowers.org>, <sunkistgrowers.net> and <sunkistasia.com> are confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered SUNKIST mark and identical to the complainant’s common law SUNKIST GROWERS mark); see also Mattel, Inc. v. domainsforsalenow@hotmail.com, FA 187609 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent has merely added the descriptive word ‘porn’ to Complainant's registered BARBIE mark, and the addition of this word does not create a notable distinction between Complainant's mark and the domain name currently in dispute.”). Lastly, each of the disputed domain names contains the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of the gTLD “.com.” is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a complainant’s registered mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to the complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1146 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Internet users searching for a company’s Web site often assume, as a rule of thumb, that the domain name of a particular company will be the company name or trademark followed by ‘.com.’”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. If Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that rights and legitimate interests exist pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has establised a prima facie case and Respondent has failed to submit a response in this proceeding. See Document Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Elec. Commc’ns Inc., D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000) (“Although Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove the presence of this element (along with the other two), once a Complainant makes out a prima facie showing, the burden of production on this factor shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.”); see also Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is neither commonly
known by, nor licensed to register, the disputed domain names.
Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Gu Bei.” The Panel finds that the WHOIS information
demonstrates that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain
name. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii), Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July
7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed
domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in
the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the
disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to
register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also 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).
Respondent
registered the <disneycaliforniaadventure.com>, <disanychannle.com>,
<disnycanal.com>, <dissne.com>, <toondisneygames.com>,
<tooondisney.com>, and <disneychaael.com> domain
names on November 9, 2005, the <disaneychannle.com>, <disentchannel.com>,
<disnecanl.com>, <disnenchannel.com>, <disyneychannel.com>,
<toondisnney.com>, and <diseychanell.com> domain
names on November 26, 2005, the <disenychanne.com>, <toondinsy.com>,
and <toondysney.com> domain names on November 27, 2005, the <disneychanele.com>
domain name on May 24, 2008, the <disneycruiselines.com> domain
name on December 24, 2008, the <disneyemployment.com> domain name
on October 25, 2007, the <disneyhcannel.com> domain name on August
2, 2007, the <disneyswan.com>domain name on November 4, 2005, the <disneyvacationpackage.com>
domain name on February 9, 2000, the <disnneychannnel.com> domain
name on March 2, 2008, the <disnypornland.com> domain name on May
17, 2007, the <wwdisneychannel.com> and <plaayhousedisney.com>
domain names on October 25, 2006, the <waltdisneycruises.com>
domain name on October 28, 2007, the <toondineyindia.com> domain
name on March 18, 2006, the <toondisniey.com> domain name on
October 1, 2005, the <playhousedisneey.com> domain name on March
18, 2008, the <playhousedisneychannelasia.com> domain name on July
3, 2006, and the <freedisneyporn.com> domain name on February 16,
2006. Respondent is using the
disputed domain names to display links advertising third-party websites
offering children’s entertainment goods and services in competition with
Complainant. The Panel infers that
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to earn click-through fees, and
thus finds that Respondent has not made 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 Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin
Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that using a domain name to direct Internet traffic to a
website featuring pop-up advertisements and links to various third-party
websites 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) because the registrant presumably receives compensation for each
misdirected Internet user); 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).
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in the
practice known as “typosquatting.” This
occurs when domain names are registered with the intent of targeting Internet
users who commit typographical errors.
This practice constitutes evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and
legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See LTD
Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA
165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14,
2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>,
<ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain
names were intentional misspellings of the complainant's LTD COMMODITIES
mark and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”); see also IndyMac
Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292
(Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged
in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who
attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly
misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter
‘c’”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to disrupt the business of Complainant by offering links to competitors is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (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); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”).
In addition, Respondent is using the disputed domain names to intentionally divert Internet users to the associated website, which displays third-party links to competing websites offering children’s entertainment products and services. In cases such as this, the Panel assumes that Respondent is collecting click-through fees and attempting to profit by creating a likelihood of confusion between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel has determined that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. The Panel need only note here that typosquatting is generally considered as sufficient evidence itself of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel so finds in the instant case. See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy 4 ¶ (a)(iii)).
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 <disneycaliforniaadventure.com>, <disaneychannle.com>, <disanychannle.com>, <disentchannel.com>, <disenychanne.com>, <diseychanell.com>, <disnecanl.com>, <disnenchannel.com>, <disneychaael.com>, <disneychanele.com>, <disneycruiselines.com>, <disneyemployment.com>, <disneyhcannel.com>, <disneyswan.com>, <disneyvacationpackage.com>, <disnneychannnel.com>, <disnycanal.com>, <disnypornland.com>, <dissne.com>, <disyneychannel.com>, <wwdisneychannel.com>, <waltdisneycruises.com>, <toondineyindia.com>, <toondinsy.com>, <toondisneygames.com>, <toondisniey.com>, <toondisnney.com>, <toondysney.com>, <tooondisney.com>, <playhousedisneey.com>, <playhousedisneychannelasia.com>, <plaayhousedisney.com>, and <freedisneyporn.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Crary Panelist
Dated: October 31, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum