Direct Line Insurance plc v. Juga Fish
Claim Number: FA1003001311750
Complainant is Direct Line Insurance plc (“Complainant”), represented by James
A. Thomas, of Troutman Sanders LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <lineadireca.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 5, 2010.
On March 7, 2010, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <lineadireca.com> 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 March 12, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 1, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@lineadireca.com. Also on March 12, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 8, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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:
Complainant offers financial
and insurance products and services throughout
Complainant holds
registrations of the LINEA DIRECTA trademark with various governmental
authorities around the world, including the Oficina Española de Patentes y
Marcas (the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office) (Reg. No. 1,190,911, issued
January 20, 1989).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized
Respondent to use the LINEA DIRECTA mark.
Respondent registered the <lineadireca.com> domain name on March 7, 2006.
As of January 15, 2009, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that imitates Complainant’s website.
As of February 10, 2010, the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to Complainant’s website.
Respondent receives a referral fee for this redirection of Internet users.
Respondent’s <lineadireca.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LINEA DIRECTA mark.
Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the <lineadireca.com> domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the <lineadireca.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
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 a 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:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant has submitted evidence of the registration of the LINEA DIRECTA trademark with the appropriate governmental trademark authorities, including the Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas (Reg. No. 1,190,911 issued January 20, 1989 ). This evidence is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the LINEA DIRECTA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Domain Admin., FA 791619 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 18, 2006) (finding that a complainant established rights in the CLARION HOTEL mark through registration of the mark with the Spanish trademark authority); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that a mark be registered in the country in which a respondent operates, it being sufficient that a complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
The <lineadireca.com>
domain name contains a misspelling of Complainant’s LINEA DIRECTA mark,
deleting the letter “t,” and merely adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)
“.com.” These alterations to
Complainant’s mark in forming the disputed domain name do not sufficiently
distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark to satisfy the strictures
of the Policy. See Pfizer Inc. v. BargainName.com, D2005-0299 (WIPO Apr. 28, 2005) (holding that the
<pfzer.com> domain name was confusingly similar to a complainant’s PFIZER
mark, where a respondent simply omitted the letter “i” in forming the disputed
domain name); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a
domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the <lineadireca.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LINEA DIRECTA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant makes this showing, the burden shifts to Respondent, who must establish by positive proof that it has rights to 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
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.
Complainant has sufficiently made a prima facie showing under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The burden therefore shifts to Respondent, from whom no response to the Complaint has been received. We are therefore free to conclude that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002):
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).
Nonetheless, we elect to examine the record before us, in light of the considerations set out in Policy ¶ 4(c), to determine if there is in it any basis for concluding that Respondent has any rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name which are cognizable under the Policy.
We begin by observing that the WHOIS information for the <lineadireca.com> domain name lists “Juga Fish” as the registrant, which does not resemble the
disputed domain name. Moreover,
Complainant asserts, and Respondent does not deny, that Complainant has not
licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the LINEA DIRECTA mark. Therefore, we conclude that Respondent is not
commonly known by the domain name <lineadireca.com>
so as to have established rights or interests in the contested domain under Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA
830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that a respondent
failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the
<emitmortgage.com> domain name where that respondent was not authorized to
register domain names featuring a complainant’s mark and failed to submit
evidence that it is commonly known by a disputed domain name); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru
Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that a respondent was not
commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no
evidence in the record, including the relevant WHOIS information, suggesting
that that respondent was commonly known by the domain name).
We also note that there is no dispute as to Complainant’s
allegation to the effect that, prior to January 15, 2009, the disputed domain
name resolved to a website that imitated Complainant’s website. It is evident therefore that Respondent has
attempted to pass itself off as Complainant, which does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Kmart of
It is neither a bona fide offerings [sic] of
goods or services, nor an example of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii) when the holder of
a domain name, confusingly similar to a registered mark, attempts to profit by
passing itself off as Complainant . . . .”
There is likewise no dispute as to Complainant’s assertion that, as of February 10, 2010, the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to Complainant’s website. Complainant further asserts, without objection from Respondent, that Respondent receives a referral fee for this redirection of Internet users. Therefore, we conclude that Respondent’s use of the <lineadireca.com> domain name is not 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 Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003):
Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking
Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit
is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See also Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd.,
FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that a respondent’s use of a
complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to form a domain name that redirects
Internet users to that respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not
constitute either a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii)).
Finally under this
head of the Complaint, we are compelled to the conclusion that Respondent is
engaged in typo-squatting because, in forming the contested domain name,
Respondent is taking advantage of a common misspelling of Complainant’s LINEA
DIRECTA mark. Typo-squatting is further
evidence that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the <lineadireca.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain
Registration
engaged in
typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶
4(a)(ii).
See also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that a respondent lacked rights to and legitimate interests in 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 therefore finds that the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) have been satisfied.
The evidence of record indicates that Respondent has attempted
to use the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. This is evidence of bad faith registration
and use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). In addition, Respondent has presumably used
the disputed domain to collect affiliate fees, which also constitutes evidence
of bad faith registration and use of the subject domain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA
105890 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 31, 2002):
Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to
a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently
displayed. Respondent has done this with
full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that
this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv)
of the Policy.
See also Target Brands, Inc. v. JK Internet Servs., FA 349108 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2004) (finding bad faith where a respondent not only registered a complainant’s TARGET mark, but “reproduced . . . Complainant’s TARGET mark . . . [and] added Complainant’s distinctive red bull’s eye [at the domain name] . . . to a point of being indistinguishable from the original.”); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent diverted Internet users searching for a complainant to its own website, likely profiting in the process).
In addition, Respondent’s use of the technique of typo-squatting is likewise evidence of bad faith registration and use of the contested domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that a respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp., FA 328127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2004):
By
engaging in typosquatting, Respondent has registered and used the … domain name
in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel thus finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lineadireca.com> domain name be forthwith TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: April 22, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum