ESPN, Inc. v. Name Administrator c/o
Claim Number: FA1001001301674
Complainant is ESPN, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by R.
Holland Campbell, of ESPN, Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <espnla.com>, registered with Moniker.
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 January 6, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 7, 2010.
On January 9, 2010, Moniker confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <espnla.com> domain name is registered with Moniker and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker 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 January 14, 2010, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 3, 2010 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@espnla.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 10, 2010, 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 <espnla.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ESPN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <espnla.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <espnla.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, ESPN, Inc. is a leading multinational and multimedia sports entertainment company. Complainant owns multiple trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and other countries worldwide for the ESPN and related marks in association with its magazines, cable television entertainment and sports programs, and computer and video games (e.g., Reg. No. 2,147,722 issued Mar. 31, 1998).
Respondent, Name Administrator c/o Hong Kong Domains LLC, registered the <espnla.com> domain name on November 9, 2005. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying links to various third-party sites, including sites for sports news and other industry and commercial websites.
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 multiple trademark registrations for the ESPN and related marks with the USPTO and other countries worldwide (e.g., Reg. No. 2,147,722 issued Mar. 31, 1998). The Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the ESPN mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the USPTO. See Automotive Racing Products, Inc. v. Linecom, FA 836787 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2006) (finding that Complainant’s federal trademark registration established its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also KCTS Television Inc. v. Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2001) (holding that it does not matter for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy whether the complainant’s mark is registered in a country other than that of the respondent’s place of business).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant ESPN mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark, adds the letters “la,” and attaches the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that a domain name that includes the entire mark of Complainant and merely adds extra letters fails to distinguish the Respondent’s disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark. See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“[T]he fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity [sic] or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Amigos On Line RJ, FA 115041 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 28, 2002) (finding that the <aolrj.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark because “…the addition of a string of indiscriminate letters to a famous mark in a second level domain does not differentiate the domain name from the mark.”). The addition of a gTLD does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alveira, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis and does not create a domain name distinguishable from Complainant’s mark). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ESPN mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has put forth a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). The Panel finds that Complainant has adequately established a prima facie case in these proceedings. Since Respondent has failed to respond to the allegations against it, the Panel may assume that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel, however, elects to consider the evidence in record in light of the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors to determine if Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent’s failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name does not reflect that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See 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); 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 respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s disputed domain
name resolves to a website displaying links to various third-party sites, including
sites for sports news and other industry and commercial websites. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use
of the disputed domain name is not a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Royal Bank of Scotland Grp
plc et al. v. Demand Domains,
FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation
of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites
was not a use in connection with 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), as the respondent presumably earned
“click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites); see also Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v.
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying links to various third-party sites, including sites for sports news and other industry and commercial websites. Such an activity clearly disrupts Complainant’s business as Internet users seeking Complainant will be diverted to other sites offering products and information that may compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that this disruption of Complainant’s business and diversion of Internet users to Complainant’s competitors shows bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).
Respondent’s incorporation of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name intends to attract Internet users seeking Complainant. When the Internet users are diverted to Respondent’s website and click on any of the third-party links, it is presumed that Respondent receives commercial gain. The Panel finds Respondent’s efforts to mislead Internet users and attract Complainant’s business in order to receive commercial gain constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the Respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); 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 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 <espnla.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: February 24, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum