Digi-Key Corporation v. Paul Potts / Peter A. Paulsen / David Craig / Henry Cavill / David Bowie
Claim Number: FA1101001370361
Complainant is Digi-Key Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Alias Encore, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Paul Potts / Peter A. Paulsen / David Craig / Henry Cavill / David Bowie
(“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain names at issue are <atdigikey.com>, <buydigikey.com>, <cadigikey.com>, <digikeyadvantage.com>, <digikey-advantage.com>, <digikeyafrica.com>, <digikey-africa.com>, <digikeyamerica.com>, <digikey-america.com>, <digikeyargentina.com>, <digikey-argentina.com>, <digikeyat.com>, <digikeyaustralia.com>, <digikey-australia.com>, <digikeyaustria.com>, <digikey-austria.com>, <digikeyavenue.com>, <digikeybad.com>, <digikey-bad.com>, <digikeybelgium.com>, <digikey-belgium.com>, <digikeybiz.com>, <digikeyblog.com>, <digikey-blog.com>, <digikeyboard.com>, <digikeybooks.com>, <digikeybrazil.com>, <digikey-brazil.com>, <digikeybulgaria.com>, <digikey-bulgaria.com>, <digikey-business.com>, <digikey-buy.com>, <digikeybuyer.com>, <digikey-buyer.com>, <digikeyca.com>, <digikey-canada.com>, <digikeycapacitor.com>, <digikeycataloging.com>, <digikeycatalogues.com>, <digikey-catalogues.com>, <digikeycategory.com>, <digikey-category.com>, <digikeychannel.com>, <digikey-channel.com>, <digikeycheap.com>, <digikey-cheap.com>, <digikeychip.com>, <digikey-chip.com>, <digikeychipoutpost.com>, <digikey-chipoutpost.com>, <digikeycommercial.com>, <digikey-commercial.com>, <digikeycompany.com>, <digikey-company.com>, <digikey-component.com>, <digikey-components.com>, <digikeycomputers.com>, <digikey-computers.com>, <digikeycomputing.com>, <digikey-computing.com>, <digikeycorp.com>, <digikey-corp.com>, <digi-keycorp.com>, <digikey-corporation.com>, <digikey-cortex.com>, <digikey-cortexcentral.com>, <digikeydeal.com>, <digikey-deal.com>, <digikeydealing.com>, <digikey-dealing.com>, <digikeydesignservice.com>, <digikey-designservice.com>, <digikey-designservices.com>, <digikeydeutschland.com>, <digikey-direct.com>, <digikeydirectory.com>, <digikey-directory.com>, <digikeydistributor.com>, <digikey-dss.com>, <digikeyec.com>, <digikey-ec.com>, <digikeyedu.com>, <digikey-edu.com>, <digikeyelectronica.com>, <digikeyele-ctronica.com>, <digikey-electronica.com>, <digikeyelectronicparts.com>, <digikey-electronicparts.com>, <digikey-engineering.com>, <digikey-engineers.com>, <digikeyes.com>, <digikey-express.com>, <digikeyform.com>, <digikeyfr.com>, <digikeyfrance.com>, <digikey-france.com>, <digikeygermany.com>, <digikeyglobal.com>, <digikey-global.com>, <digikeyglobe.com>, <digikeygroup.com>, <digikey-group.com>, <digikeyhongkong.com>, <digikey-hongkong.com>, <digikeyinfo.com>, <digikey-info.com>, <digikeyitaly.com>, <digikey-italy.com>, <digikeyjapan.com>, <digikey-japan.com>, <digikeykatalog.com>, <digikey-katalog.com>, <digikeykit.com>, <digikey-kit.com>, <digikeykr.com>, <digikeylabs.com>, <digikey-labs.com>, <digikeyled.com>, <digikeylist.com>, <digikeylive.com>, <digikeyman.com>, <digikeymanufacturer.com>, <digikey-manufacturer.com>, <digikeymarketplace.com>, <digikeymart.com>, <digikey-mart.com>, <digikeymedia.com>, <digikey-media.com>, <digikeymkt.com>, <digikeynederland.com>, <digikeynl.com>, <digikeynote.com>, <digikeyoffice.com>, <digikeyonlinecatalogue.com>, <digikey-onlinecatalogue.com>, <digikey-order.com>, <digikey-ordering.com>, <digikeypad.com>, <digikey-pad.com>, <digikeypay.com>, <digikey-pay.com>, <digikeypdfcatalog.com>, <digikey-pdfcatalog.com>, <digikeyportugal.com>, <digikey-portugal.com>, <digikeyprintcatalog.com>, <digikeypro.com>, <digikey-pro.com>, <digikeypromotions.com>, <digikeypt.com>, <digikeysample.com>, <digikeysearch.com>, <digikey-search.com>, <digikey-sell.com>, <digikeyselling.com>, <digikey-selling.com>, <digikeyservice.com>, <digikey-service.com>, <digikeyservices.com>, <digikeysg.com>, <digikeyshopping.com>, <digikey-shopping.com>, <digikeyshops.com>, <digikey-shops.com>, <digikeyspace.com>, <digikeyspain.com>, <digikey-spain.com>, <digikeystuff.com>, <digikey-stuff.com>, <digikeysucks.com>, <digikey-sucks.com>, <digikeysupplier.com>, <digikeysupply.com>, <digikey-supplychain.com>, <digikeysupport.com>, <digikey-support.com>, <digikeysystem.com>, <digikey-system.com>, <digikeysystems.com>, <digikey-systems.com>, <digikeytable.com>, <digikeytabulation.com>, <digikeytaiwan.com>, <digikey-taiwan.com>, <digikey-tech.com>, <digikey-technology.com>, <digikeytitle.com>, <digikey-title.com>, <digikeytoolbar.com>, <digikeytoolsexpress.com>, <digikey-toolsexpress.com>, <digikeytrade.com>, <digikey-trade.com>, <digikeytrading.com>, <digikey-trading.com>, <digikey-university.com>, <digikey-valuebusiness.com>, <digikey-vbd.com>, <digikeyvip.com>, <digikey-vip.com>, <digikey-volumebusiness.com>, <digikeyweb.com>, <digikey-wiki.com>, <digikeyword.com>, <electronicadigikey.com>, <indigikey.com>, <itdigikey.com>, <it-digikey.com>, <mediadigikey.com>, <my-digikey.com>, <onlinecatalogdigikey.com>, <orderingdigikey.com>, <pdfcatalogdigikey.com>, <ptdigikey.com>, <rockydigikey.com>, <suppliersdigikey.com>, <tdigikey.com>, and <twdigikey.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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 31, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 1, 2011.
On Feb 01, 2011; Feb 9, 2011, Godaddy.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the disputed domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.Com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, 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 February 17, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 2011 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@atdigikey.com, postmaster@buydigikey.com, postmaster@cadigikey.com, postmaster@digikeyadvantage.com, postmaster@digikey-advantage.com, postmaster@digikeyafrica.com, postmaster@digikey-africa.com, postmaster@digikeyamerica.com, postmaster@digikey-america.com, postmaster@digikeyargentina.com, postmaster@digikey-argentina.com, postmaster@digikeyat.com, postmaster@digikeyaustralia.com, postmaster@digikey-australia.com, postmaster@digikeyaustria.com, postmaster@digikey-austria.com, postmaster@digikeyavenue.com, postmaster@digikeybad.com, postmaster@digikey-bad.com, postmaster@digikeybelgium.com, postmaster@digikey-belgium.com, postmaster@digikeybiz.com, postmaster@digikeyblog.com, postmaster@digikey-blog.com, postmaster@digikeyboard.com, postmaster@digikeybooks.com, postmaster@digikeybrazil.com, postmaster@digikey-brazil.com, postmaster@digikeybulgaria.com, postmaster@digikey-bulgaria.com, postmaster@digikey-business.com, postmaster@digikey-buy.com, postmaster@digikeybuyer.com, postmaster@digikey-buyer.com, postmaster@digikeyca.com, postmaster@digikey-canada.com, postmaster@digikeycapacitor.com, postmaster@digikeycataloging.com, postmaster@digikeycatalogues.com, postmaster@digikey-catalogues.com, postmaster@digikeycategory.com, postmaster@digikey-category.com, postmaster@digikeychannel.com, postmaster@digikey-channel.com, postmaster@digikeycheap.com, postmaster@digikey-cheap.com, postmaster@digikeychip.com, postmaster@digikey-chip.com, postmaster@digikeychipoutpost.com, postmaster@digikey-chipoutpost.com, postmaster@digikeycommercial.com, postmaster@digikey-commercial.com, postmaster@digikeycompany.com, postmaster@digikey-company.com, postmaster@digikey-component.com, postmaster@digikey-components.com, postmaster@digikeycomputers.com, postmaster@digikey-computers.com, postmaster@digikeycomputing.com, postmaster@digikey-computing.com, postmaster@digikeycorp.com, postmaster@digikey-corp.com, postmaster@digi-keycorp.com, postmaster@digikey-corporation.com, postmaster@digikey-cortex.com, postmaster@digikey-cortexcentral.com, postmaster@digikeydeal.com, postmaster@digikey-deal.com, postmaster@digikeydealing.com, postmaster@digikey-dealing.com, postmaster@digikeydesignservice.com, postmaster@digikey-designservice.com, postmaster@digikey-designservices.com, postmaster@digikeydeutschland.com, postmaster@digikey-direct.com, postmaster@digikeydirectory.com, postmaster@digikey-directory.com, postmaster@digikeydistributor.com, postmaster@digikey-dss.com, postmaster@digikeyec.com, postmaster@digikey-ec.com, postmaster@digikeyedu.com, postmaster@digikey-edu.com, postmaster@digikeyelectronica.com, postmaster@digikeyele-ctronica.com, postmaster@digikey-electronica.com, postmaster@digikeyelectronicparts.com, postmaster@digikey-electronicparts.com, postmaster@digikey-engineering.com, postmaster@digikey-engineers.com, postmaster@digikeyes.com, postmaster@digikey-express.com, postmaster@digikeyform.com, postmaster@digikeyfr.com, postmaster@digikeyfrance.com, postmaster@digikey-france.com, postmaster@digikeygermany.com, postmaster@digikeyglobal.com, postmaster@digikey-global.com, postmaster@digikeyglobe.com, postmaster@digikeygroup.com, postmaster@digikey-group.com, postmaster@digikeyhongkong.com, postmaster@digikey-hongkong.com, postmaster@digikeyinfo.com, postmaster@digikey-info.com, postmaster@digikeyitaly.com, postmaster@digikey-italy.com, postmaster@digikeyjapan.com, postmaster@digikey-japan.com, postmaster@digikeykatalog.com, postmaster@digikey-katalog.com, postmaster@digikeykit.com, postmaster@digikey-kit.com, postmaster@digikeykr.com, postmaster@digikeylabs.com, postmaster@digikey-labs.com, postmaster@digikeyled.com, postmaster@digikeylist.com, postmaster@digikeylive.com, postmaster@digikeyman.com, postmaster@digikeymanufacturer.com, postmaster@digikey-manufacturer.com, postmaster@digikeymarketplace.com, postmaster@digikeymart.com, postmaster@digikey-mart.com, postmaster@digikeymedia.com, postmaster@digikey-media.com, postmaster@digikeymkt.com, postmaster@digikeynederland.com, postmaster@digikeynl.com, postmaster@digikeynote.com, postmaster@digikeyoffice.com, postmaster@digikeyonlinecatalogue.com, postmaster@digikey-onlinecatalogue.com, postmaster@digikey-order.com, postmaster@digikey-ordering.com, postmaster@digikeypad.com, postmaster@digikey-pad.com, postmaster@digikeypay.com, postmaster@digikey-pay.com, postmaster@digikeypdfcatalog.com, postmaster@digikey-pdfcatalog.com, postmaster@digikeyportugal.com, postmaster@digikey-portugal.com, postmaster@digikeyprintcatalog.com, postmaster@digikeypro.com, postmaster@digikey-pro.com, postmaster@digikeypromotions.com, postmaster@digikeypt.com, postmaster@digikeysample.com, postmaster@digikeysearch.com, postmaster@digikey-search.com, postmaster@digikey-sell.com, postmaster@digikeyselling.com, postmaster@digikey-selling.com, postmaster@digikeyservice.com, postmaster@digikey-service.com, postmaster@digikeyservices.com, postmaster@digikeysg.com, postmaster@digikeyshopping.com, postmaster@digikey-shopping.com, postmaster@digikeyshops.com, postmaster@digikey-shops.com, postmaster@digikeyspace.com, postmaster@digikeyspain.com, postmaster@digikey-spain.com, postmaster@digikeystuff.com, postmaster@digikey-stuff.com, postmaster@digikeysucks.com, postmaster@digikey-sucks.com, postmaster@digikeysupplier.com, postmaster@digikeysupply.com, postmaster@digikey-supplychain.com, postmaster@digikeysupport.com, postmaster@digikey-support.com, postmaster@digikeysystem.com, postmaster@digikey-system.com, postmaster@digikeysystems.com, postmaster@digikey-systems.com, postmaster@digikeytable.com, postmaster@digikeytabulation.com, postmaster@digikeytaiwan.com, postmaster@digikey-taiwan.com, postmaster@digikey-tech.com, postmaster@digikey-technology.com, postmaster@digikeytitle.com, postmaster@digikey-title.com, postmaster@digikeytoolbar.com, postmaster@digikeytoolsexpress.com, postmaster@digikey-toolsexpress.com, postmaster@digikeytrade.com, postmaster@digikey-trade.com, postmaster@digikeytrading.com, postmaster@digikey-trading.com, postmaster@digikey-university.com, postmaster@digikey-valuebusiness.com, postmaster@digikey-vbd.com, postmaster@digikeyvip.com, postmaster@digikey-vip.com, postmaster@digikey-volumebusiness.com, postmaster@digikeyweb.com, postmaster@digikey-wiki.com, postmaster@digikeyword.com, postmaster@electronicadigikey.com, postmaster@indigikey.com, postmaster@itdigikey.com, postmaster@it-digikey.com, postmaster@mediadigikey.com, postmaster@my-digikey.com, postmaster@onlinecatalogdigikey.com, postmaster@orderingdigikey.com, postmaster@pdfcatalogdigikey.com, postmaster@ptdigikey.com, postmaster@rockydigikey.com, postmaster@suppliersdigikey.com, postmaster@tdigikey.com, and postmaster@twdigikey.com. Also on February 17, 2011, 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 March 15, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIGI-KEY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Digi-Key Corporation, owns trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its DIGI-KEY mark:
Reg. No. Registration Date
1,487,965 May 10, 1988
2,734,969 July 8, 2003
Complainant uses its DIGI-KEY mark in furtherance of its business as a distributor of electronic components. Complainant registered its official <digikey.com> domain name in 1995 through which Complainant offers online access to its product inventory.
Respondent, Paul Potts / Peter A. Paulsen / David Craig / Henry Cavill / David Bowie, registered the disputed domain names not earlier than June 28, 2010. The disputed domain names all resolve to websites featuring links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s business.
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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant has reviewed the registration history for all of the at issue domain names and has provided evidence that the disputed domain names were initially registered in batches and later updated by a single individual to reflect the aliases currently used. The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established evidence indicating that the disputed domain names are effectively controlled by a single entity.
Complainant alleges that it has rights in the DIGI-KEY mark based on its registrations of the mark with the USPTO:
Reg. No. Registration Date
1,487,965 May 10, 1988
2,734,969 July 8, 2003
The Panel finds that Complainant has correctly asserted rights in the DIGI-KEY mark based on USPTO trademark registrations, and that evidence of such registrations is sufficient to meet the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), regardless of Respondent’s country of operations or residence. See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)”); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIGI-KEY mark. The disputed domain names all contain Complainant’s DIGI-KEY mark, absent the hyphen. The Panel finds that the removal of a hyphen from Complainant’s mark does not render a disputed domain name distinct from the mark itself. See Nat’l Cable Satellite Corp. v. Black Sun Surf Co., FA 94738 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2000) (holding that the domain name <cspan.net>, which omitted the hyphen from the trademark spelling, C-SPAN, is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark). The disputed domain names then all add one or more of the following: 1) a single letter or combination of letters; 2) a generic term; 3) a descriptive term; 4) a geographic term; and 5) a hyphen, to Complainant’s DIGI-KEY mark. The Panel finds that none of these additions, either alone or in conjunction with one another, are able to overcome a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and Complainant’s 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 Kelson Physician Partners, Inc. v. Mason, CPR003 (CPR 2000) (finding that <kelsonmd.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s federally registered service mark, KELSON); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2007) (finding that the addition of the descriptive term “wine” to the complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark in the <blackstonewine.com> domain name was insufficient to distinguish the mark from the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Gannett Co. v. Chan, D2004-0117 (WIPO Apr. 8, 2004) (“…it is well established that a domain name consisting of a well-known mark, combined with a geographically descriptive term or phrase, is confusingly similar to the mark.”); see also Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003) (“The addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis.”). Finally, all of the disputed domain names incorporate the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” which the Panel finds is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See 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); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent’s disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIGI-KEY mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name before the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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.”). Respondent has not submitted a Response to these proceedings from which the Panel is allowed to infer that Respondent does not in fact possess any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 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.”). However, in the interest of fairness, the Panel elects to examine the record, in its entirety, with respect to the factors contained in Policy ¶ 4(c), to determine Respondent’s status as to rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names contains no information that would allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. Complainant further alleges that Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way and that Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s DIGI-KEY mark in a domain name. There does not appear to be any evidence in the record to the contrary, thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name 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).
In its Complaint, Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to websites featuring links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s electronics distribution business. Complainant presumes that Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from the linked websites. Complainant contends, and the Panel agrees, that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names to make 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 ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. balata inc, FA 888649 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2007) (finding that “using the confusingly similar <viaggidea.com> domain name to operate a website that features links to various commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees….is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
Although Complainant does not argue it in the Complaint, Complainant has submitted an email from Respondent that appears to indicate that Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant for the amount of $100-$200 per domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s email to Complainant, offering to sell the disputed domain names, is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that a respondent’s willingness to sell a domain name to the complainant suggests that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in that domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. Domains, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name is further evidenced by Respondent’s attempt to sell its domain name registration to Complainant, the rightful holder of the RED CROSS mark.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As established above, Complainant submitted an email from Respondent wherein Respondent suggests selling each of the 218 disputed domain names to Complainant for the amount of $100-$200 per domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant is enough evidence to support a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding the respondent's offer to sell the domain name at issue to the complainant was evidence of bad faith).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites displaying links to third-party websites that compete with Complainant’s electronics distribution business in operation under the DIGI-KEY mark. The Panel finds that displaying links to competitors is evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names with the intent to disrupt Complainant’s business and therefore is proof 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 St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names to feature links to third-party websites and presumably receive pay-per-click fees improperly uses the fame of Complainant’s marks to increase traffic to the resolving websites for Respondent’s own commercial gain. The Panel therefore concludes that a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) is appropriate. 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 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)).
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 <atdigikey.com>, <buydigikey.com>, <cadigikey.com>, <digikeyadvantage.com>, <digikey-advantage.com>, <digikeyafrica.com>, <digikey-africa.com>, <digikeyamerica.com>, <digikey-america.com>, <digikeyargentina.com>, <digikey-argentina.com>, <digikeyat.com>, <digikeyaustralia.com>, <digikey-australia.com>, <digikeyaustria.com>, <digikey-austria.com>, <digikeyavenue.com>, <digikeybad.com>, <digikey-bad.com>, <digikeybelgium.com>, <digikey-belgium.com>, <digikeybiz.com>, <digikeyblog.com>, <digikey-blog.com>, <digikeyboard.com>, <digikeybooks.com>, <digikeybrazil.com>, <digikey-brazil.com>, <digikeybulgaria.com>, <digikey-bulgaria.com>, <digikey-business.com>, <digikey-buy.com>, <digikeybuyer.com>, <digikey-buyer.com>, <digikeyca.com>, <digikey-canada.com>, <digikeycapacitor.com>, <digikeycataloging.com>, <digikeycatalogues.com>, <digikey-catalogues.com>, <digikeycategory.com>, <digikey-category.com>, <digikeychannel.com>, <digikey-channel.com>, <digikeycheap.com>, <digikey-cheap.com>, <digikeychip.com>, <digikey-chip.com>, <digikeychipoutpost.com>, <digikey-chipoutpost.com>, <digikeycommercial.com>, <digikey-commercial.com>, <digikeycompany.com>, <digikey-company.com>, <digikey-component.com>, <digikey-components.com>, <digikeycomputers.com>, <digikey-computers.com>, <digikeycomputing.com>, <digikey-computing.com>, <digikeycorp.com>, <digikey-corp.com>, <digi-keycorp.com>, <digikey-corporation.com>, <digikey-cortex.com>, <digikey-cortexcentral.com>, <digikeydeal.com>, <digikey-deal.com>, <digikeydealing.com>, <digikey-dealing.com>, <digikeydesignservice.com>, <digikey-designservice.com>, <digikey-designservices.com>, <digikeydeutschland.com>, <digikey-direct.com>, <digikeydirectory.com>, <digikey-directory.com>, <digikeydistributor.com>, <digikey-dss.com>, <digikeyec.com>, <digikey-ec.com>, <digikeyedu.com>, <digikey-edu.com>, <digikeyelectronica.com>, <digikeyele-ctronica.com>, <digikey-electronica.com>, <digikeyelectronicparts.com>, <digikey-electronicparts.com>, <digikey-engineering.com>, <digikey-engineers.com>, <digikeyes.com>, <digikey-express.com>, <digikeyform.com>, <digikeyfr.com>, <digikeyfrance.com>, <digikey-france.com>, <digikeygermany.com>, <digikeyglobal.com>, <digikey-global.com>, <digikeyglobe.com>, <digikeygroup.com>, <digikey-group.com>, <digikeyhongkong.com>, <digikey-hongkong.com>, <digikeyinfo.com>, <digikey-info.com>, <digikeyitaly.com>, <digikey-italy.com>, <digikeyjapan.com>, <digikey-japan.com>, <digikeykatalog.com>, <digikey-katalog.com>, <digikeykit.com>, <digikey-kit.com>, <digikeykr.com>, <digikeylabs.com>, <digikey-labs.com>, <digikeyled.com>, <digikeylist.com>, <digikeylive.com>, <digikeyman.com>, <digikeymanufacturer.com>, <digikey-manufacturer.com>, <digikeymarketplace.com>, <digikeymart.com>, <digikey-mart.com>, <digikeymedia.com>, <digikey-media.com>, <digikeymkt.com>, <digikeynederland.com>, <digikeynl.com>, <digikeynote.com>, <digikeyoffice.com>, <digikeyonlinecatalogue.com>, <digikey-onlinecatalogue.com>, <digikey-order.com>, <digikey-ordering.com>, <digikeypad.com>, <digikey-pad.com>, <digikeypay.com>, <digikey-pay.com>, <digikeypdfcatalog.com>, <digikey-pdfcatalog.com>, <digikeyportugal.com>, <digikey-portugal.com>, <digikeyprintcatalog.com>, <digikeypro.com>, <digikey-pro.com>, <digikeypromotions.com>, <digikeypt.com>, <digikeysample.com>, <digikeysearch.com>, <digikey-search.com>, <digikey-sell.com>, <digikeyselling.com>, <digikey-selling.com>, <digikeyservice.com>, <digikey-service.com>, <digikeyservices.com>, <digikeysg.com>, <digikeyshopping.com>, <digikey-shopping.com>, <digikeyshops.com>, <digikey-shops.com>, <digikeyspace.com>, <digikeyspain.com>, <digikey-spain.com>, <digikeystuff.com>, <digikey-stuff.com>, <digikeysucks.com>, <digikey-sucks.com>, <digikeysupplier.com>, <digikeysupply.com>, <digikey-supplychain.com>, <digikeysupport.com>, <digikey-support.com>, <digikeysystem.com>, <digikey-system.com>, <digikeysystems.com>, <digikey-systems.com>, <digikeytable.com>, <digikeytabulation.com>, <digikeytaiwan.com>, <digikey-taiwan.com>, <digikey-tech.com>, <digikey-technology.com>, <digikeytitle.com>, <digikey-title.com>, <digikeytoolbar.com>, <digikeytoolsexpress.com>, <digikey-toolsexpress.com>, <digikeytrade.com>, <digikey-trade.com>, <digikeytrading.com>, <digikey-trading.com>, <digikey-university.com>, <digikey-valuebusiness.com>, <digikey-vbd.com>, <digikeyvip.com>, <digikey-vip.com>, <digikey-volumebusiness.com>, <digikeyweb.com>, <digikey-wiki.com>, <digikeyword.com>, <electronicadigikey.com>, <indigikey.com>, <itdigikey.com>, <it-digikey.com>, <mediadigikey.com>, <my-digikey.com>, <onlinecatalogdigikey.com>, <orderingdigikey.com>, <pdfcatalogdigikey.com>, <ptdigikey.com>, <rockydigikey.com>, <suppliersdigikey.com>, <tdigikey.com>, and <twdigikey.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 18, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page