Certification Trendz, Ltd. v. G.V. Vyas / Blue City Software
Claim Number: FA1010001352955
Complainant is Certification Trendz, Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Robert A. Auchter of McKool Smith, P.C., Washington, D.C., U.S. Respondent is G.V. Vyas / Blue City Software (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <testking.info>, registered with eNom, Inc.
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 19, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 19, 2010.
On October 19, 2010, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <testking.info> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. 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 20, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 9, 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@testking.info. Also on October 20, 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 16, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <testking.info> domain name is identical to Complainant’s TESTKING mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <testking.info> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <testking.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Certification Trendz, Ltd., sells Information Technology certification test preparation materials over the Internet and has been operating in such fashion since 2002. Complainant conducts its business through its official <testking.com> domain name that it registered and has used since December 2001. Further, Complainant owns a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its TEST KING mark (Reg. No. 3,630,272 filed September 2, 2008; issued June 2, 2009). Complainant also owns a trademark registration with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) for the TESTKING mark (Reg. No. 2,416,636 issued October 20, 2006).
Respondent, G.V. Vyas / Blue City Software, registered the <testking.info> domain name on September 16, 2004. Respondent’s disputed domain name redirects Internet users to Respondent’s <real-exams.net>, where Respondent sell practice tests and preparation materials 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 has submitted evidence to show that it owns trademark registrations with the USPTO and UKIPO for its TEST KING (USPTO Reg. No. 3,630,272 filed September 2, 2008; issued June 2, 2009) and TESTKING marks (UKIPO Reg. No. 2,416,636 issued October 20, 2006). The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its TESTKING marks that date back to October 20, 2006, which is the earliest date that Complainant was issued trademark protection with the UKIPO. See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s federal trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
However, the Panel further finds that Complainant need not own a trademark registration with a governmental trademark authority to establish rights in its mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that the complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the complainant need not own a valid trademark registration for the ZEE CINEMA mark in order to demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant submits evidence to show that it registered its official <testking.com> domain name on December 5, 2001. Complainant argues that it has continuously used its mark since that time to develop and expand its Information Technology test preparation and certificate offerings to the general public. The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to establish rights in its mark dating back to December 5, 2001 under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also Quality Custom Cabinetry, Inc. v. Cabinet Wholesalers, Inc., FA 115349 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2002) (finding that the complainant established common law rights in the mark through continuous use of the mark since 1995 for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant argues that the <testking.info> domain name is identical to Complainant’s TESTKING mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel notes that the domain name contains Complainant’s mark entirely while adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.info.” Therefore, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent’s <testking.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See PepsiCo, Inc. v. Shah, FA 103934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2002) (finding the <pepsico.info> domain name identical to the complainant’s PEPSICO mark); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Zournas, FA 1093928 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 10, 2007) (“the Panel finds that Respondent’s <windows.info> domain name is identical to Complainant’s WINDOWS mark as the addition of a gTLD is a necessary addition in the creation of any domain name and therefore an indistinguishing characteristic under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).“).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant maintains that Respondent does not have any rights and legitimate interests in the <testking.info> domain name. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”). The Panel finds that Complainant has produced a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See 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.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond). The Panel, however, will examine the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the <testking.info> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that it has not granted Respondent permission to use its TESTKING mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known as the <testking.info> domain name. The WHOIS information list the domain name registrant as “G.V. Vyas / Blue City Software,” which does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known as the disputed domain name. Respondent has not produced any evidence to show that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to Respondent’s competing <real-exams.net> website. Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate its competing business in the Information Technology test preparation materials industry, and that such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to operate a competing business and website of Complainant 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 Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent’s disputed domain name diverts Internet users who are seeking Complainant’s official <testking.com> website and products to Respondent’s competing website. The Panel finds that such use of an identical domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website).
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent’s redirection of Internet users to Respondent’s competing website results in commercial gain for Respondent through the advertisement and sale of competing test preparation materials. The Panel finds that Respondent is profiting from the use of the identical domain name by redirecting Internet users to Respondent’s own website that sells similar and competing products, and that such use is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of the complainant).
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 <testking.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: November 24, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page