The Knot, Inc. v. Privacy Ltd. Disclosed Agent for YOLAPT
Claim Number: FA1010001350443
Complainant is The Knot, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Privacy Ltd. Disclosed Agent for YOLAPT ("Respondent"), Isle of Man.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com>, registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd.
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 5, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 5, 2010.
On October 5, 2010, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names are registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 8, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 28, 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@thekont.com, postmaster@thenknot.com. Also on October 8, 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 November 9, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE KNOT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, The Knot, Inc., holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” ) for its THE KNOT mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,136,948 issued February 17, 1998). Complainant uses its THE KNOT mark for wedding-planning services and wedding and marriage advice.
Respondent registered the <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names on September 23, 2000 and December 27, 2002 respectively. The disputed domain names resolve to directory websites that provide hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which offer services in competition with Complainant’s services.
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 claims rights in its THE KNOT mark through numerous registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. no. 2,136,948 issued on February 17, 1998). The Panel finds these trademark registrations sufficiently prove Complainant’s rights in THE KNOT mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Emmerson, FA 873346 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 9, 2007) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO adequately demonstrate its rights in the [EXPEDIA] mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Johnston, FA 760084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 25, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the BLOOMBERG mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office). The Panel also determines it is irrelevant whether Complainant holds trademark registrations with the trademark authority in the country in which Respondent resides. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Complainant contends Respondent’s <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names are confusingly similar to its THE KNOT mark. In the <thekont.com> domain name, Respondent transposes the letters “n” and “o” in the second term in Complainant’s mark. In the <thenknot.com> domain name, Respondent adds the letter “n” to the first term in Complainant’s mark. Additionally, Respondent deletes the space between the terms in Complainant’s mark. Respondent also affixes the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds these slight alterations do not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”); see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Ikhizamah, D2002-1168 (WIPO Mar. 17, 2003) (holding that the <zamazon.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AMAZON.COM mark); see also Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i); 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 concludes that Respondent’s <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names are confusingly similar Complainant’s THE KNOT mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case showing Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The burden then shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel may view Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “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.”). Despite Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel will evaluate the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant avers it has not authorized, licensed, or permitted Respondent to use its THE KNOT mark in any way. Moreover, the WHOIS registrant information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names resolve to directory websites that provide hyperlinks to third-party websites, some of which offer services in competition with Complainant’s services. Complainant submits screen shots of the resolving websites. These images show websites that display hyperlinks with titles like “Wedding Invitation,” “Wedding Favors,” “Wedding Registry,” and “Wedding Planning.” In addition, Complainant contends that Respondent profits from its use of the disputed domain names through the receipt of pay-per-click fees. The Panel agrees. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for 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 Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s commercial use of a confusingly similar domain name suggests that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was 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)).
Complainant further contends that Respondent’s <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names incorporate common typographical errors to create misspellings of Complainant’s THE KNOT mark. The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting and that this behavior provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “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 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 Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that the <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names resolve to websites that offer services in competition with Complainant’s services. Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent’s domain names disrupt Complainant’s business, which is evidence of bad faith 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 Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors).
As previously discussed, Respondent’s <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE KNOT mark. Moreover, Respondent profits from its use of the disputed domain names through the receipt of pay-per-click fees. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s site. Accordingly, the Panel determines that Respondent has engaged in registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme).
Finally, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s typosquatting behavior provides further evidence that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <thekont.com> and <thenknot.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: November 18, 2010
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page