The Weather Underground, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy
Claim Number: FA1102001374597
Complainant is The Weather Underground, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by John Di Giacomo of Traverse Legal, PLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Above.com Domain Privacy (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <eweatherunderground.com>, <weathereunderground.com>, <weatherubderground.com>, <weatheruncerground.com>, <weatherundeeground.com>, <weatherundergeound.com>, <weatherundergreound.com>, <weatherundergroudn.com>, <weatherundergtound.com>, <weatherunserground.com>, <weathreunderground.com>, <weeatherunderground.com>, <wndergrond.com>, <wnuderground.com>, <wujnderground.com>, <wuncerground.com>, <wundderground.com>, <wundeeground.com>, <wundefground.com>, <wunderbround.com>, <wundergronud.com>, <wundergroundc.com>, <wundergrounde.com>, <wundergroune.com>, <wundergrounnd.com>, <wundergrpound.com>, <wundergrpund.com>, <wundergrround.com>, <wundrerground.com>, <wundwerground.com>, <wundwrground.com>, <wunedrground.com>, <wunserground.com>, <wyunderground.com>, <gwunderground.com>, <undergroundweathe.com>, <weatherudergroud.com>, <weatherundergrounnd.com>, <weatherunground.com>, <weathweunderground.com>, <wunderderground.com>, <wundergronnd.com>, <wundergrownd.com>, <wundergrpond.com>, <wundermaps.com>, <wundgerground.com>, <wundrrground.com>, <wxunderground.com>, <undergroumdweather.com>, and <wonderunderground.com>, registered with Above.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 February 23, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 23, 2011.
On February 27, 2011, Above.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <eweatherunderground.com>, <weathereunderground.com>, <weatherubderground.com>, <weatheruncerground.com>, <weatherundeeground.com>, <weatherundergeound.com>, <weatherundergreound.com>, <weatherundergroudn.com>, <weatherundergtound.com>, <weatherunserground.com>, <weathreunderground.com>, <weeatherunderground.com>, <wndergrond.com>, <wnuderground.com>, <wujnderground.com>, <wuncerground.com>, <wundderground.com>, <wundeeground.com>, <wundefground.com>, <wunderbround.com>, <wundergronud.com>, <wundergroundc.com>, <wundergrounde.com>, <wundergroune.com>, <wundergrounnd.com>, <wundergrpound.com>, <wundergrpund.com>, <wundergrround.com>, <wundrerground.com>, <wundwerground.com>, <wundwrground.com>, <wunedrground.com>, <wunserground.com>, <wyunderground.com>, <gwunderground.com>, <undergroundweathe.com>, <weatherudergroud.com>, <weatherundergrounnd.com>, <weatherunground.com>, <weathweunderground.com>, <wunderderground.com>, <wundergronnd.com>, <wundergrownd.com>, <wundergrpond.com>, <wundermaps.com>, <wundgerground.com>, <wundrrground.com>, <wxunderground.com>, <undergroumdweather.com>, and <wonderunderground.com> domain names are registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Above.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.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 March 1, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 21, 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@eweatherunderground.com, postmaster@weathereunderground.com, postmaster@weatherubderground.com, postmaster@weatheruncerground.com, postmaster@weatherundeeground.com, postmaster@weatherundergeound.com, postmaster@weatherundergreound.com, postmaster@weatherundergroudn.com, postmaster@weatherundergtound.com, postmaster@weatherunserground.com, postmaster@weathreunderground.com, postmaster@weeatherunderground.com, postmaster@wndergrond.com, postmaster@wnuderground.com, postmaster@wujnderground.com, postmaster@wuncerground.com, postmaster@wundderground.com, postmaster@wundeeground.com, postmaster@wundefground.com, postmaster@wunderbround.com, postmaster@wundergronud.com, postmaster@wundergroundc.com, postmaster@wundergrounde.com, postmaster@wundergroune.com, postmaster@wundergrounnd.com, postmaster@wundergrpound.com, postmaster@wundergrpund.com, postmaster@wundergrround.com, postmaster@wundrerground.com, postmaster@wundwerground.com, postmaster@wundwrground.com, postmaster@wunedrground.com, postmaster@wunserground.com, postmaster@wyunderground.com, postmaster@gwunderground.com, postmaster@undergroundweathe.com, postmaster@weatherudergroud.com, postmaster@weatherundergrounnd.com, postmaster@weatherunground.com, postmaster@weathweunderground.com, postmaster@wunderderground.com, postmaster@wundergronnd.com, postmaster@wundergrownd.com, postmaster@wundergrpond.com, postmaster@wundermaps.com, postmaster@wundgerground.com, postmaster@wundrrground.com, postmaster@wxunderground.com, postmaster@undergroumdweather.com, and postmaster@wonderunderground.com. Also on March 1, 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 23, 2011, 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 <eweatherunderground.com>, <weathereunderground.com>, <weatherubderground.com>, <weatheruncerground.com>, <weatherundeeground.com>, <weatherundergeound.com>, <weatherundergreound.com>, <weatherundergroudn.com>, <weatherundergtound.com>, <weatherunserground.com>, <weathreunderground.com>, <weeatherunderground.com>, <undergroundweathe.com>, <weatherudergroud.com>, <weatherundergrounnd.com>, <weatherunground.com>, <weathweunderground.com>, and <undergroumdweather.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND mark.
Respondent’s <wndergrond.com>, <wnuderground.com>, <wujnderground.com>, <wuncerground.com>, <wundderground.com>, <wundeeground.com>, <wundefground.com>, <wunderbround.com>, <wundergronud.com>, <wundergroundc.com>, <wundergrounde.com>, <wundergroune.com>, <wundergrounnd.com>, <wundergrpound.com>, <wundergrpund.com>, <wundergrround.com>, <wundrerground.com>, <wundwerground.com>, <wundwrground.com>, <wunedrground.com>, <wunserground.com>, <wyunderground.com>, <gwunderground.com>, <wunderderground.com>, <wundergronnd.com>, <wundergrownd.com>, <wundergrpond.com>, <wundermaps.com>, <wundgerground.com>, <wundrrground.com>, <wxunderground.com>, and <wonderunderground.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s WUNDERGROUND.COM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <eweatherunderground.com>, <weathereunderground.com>, <weatherubderground.com>, <weatheruncerground.com>, <weatherundeeground.com>, <weatherundergeound.com>, <weatherundergreound.com>, <weatherundergroudn.com>, <weatherundergtound.com>, <weatherunserground.com>, <weathreunderground.com>, <weeatherunderground.com>, <wndergrond.com>, <wnuderground.com>, <wujnderground.com>, <wuncerground.com>, <wundderground.com>, <wundeeground.com>, <wundefground.com>, <wunderbround.com>, <wundergronud.com>, <wundergroundc.com>, <wundergrounde.com>, <wundergroune.com>, <wundergrounnd.com>, <wundergrpound.com>, <wundergrpund.com>, <wundergrround.com>, <wundrerground.com>, <wundwerground.com>, <wundwrground.com>, <wunedrground.com>, <wunserground.com>, <wyunderground.com>, <gwunderground.com>, <undergroundweathe.com>, <weatherudergroud.com>, <weatherundergrounnd.com>, <weatherunground.com>, <weathweunderground.com>, <wunderderground.com>, <wundergronnd.com>, <wundergrownd.com>, <wundergrpond.com>, <wundermaps.com>, <wundgerground.com>, <wundrrground.com>, <wxunderground.com>, <undergroumdweather.com>, and <wonderunderground.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <eweatherunderground.com>, <weathereunderground.com>, <weatherubderground.com>, <weatheruncerground.com>, <weatherundeeground.com>, <weatherundergeound.com>, <weatherundergreound.com>, <weatherundergroudn.com>, <weatherundergtound.com>, <weatherunserground.com>, <weathreunderground.com>, <weeatherunderground.com>, <wndergrond.com>, <wnuderground.com>, <wujnderground.com>, <wuncerground.com>, <wundderground.com>, <wundeeground.com>, <wundefground.com>, <wunderbround.com>, <wundergronud.com>, <wundergroundc.com>, <wundergrounde.com>, <wundergroune.com>, <wundergrounnd.com>, <wundergrpound.com>, <wundergrpund.com>, <wundergrround.com>, <wundrerground.com>, <wundwerground.com>, <wundwrground.com>, <wunedrground.com>, <wunserground.com>, <wyunderground.com>, <gwunderground.com>, <undergroundweathe.com>, <weatherudergroud.com>, <weatherundergrounnd.com>, <weatherunground.com>, <weathweunderground.com>, <wunderderground.com>, <wundergronnd.com>, <wundergrownd.com>, <wundergrpond.com>, <wundermaps.com>, <wundgerground.com>, <wundrrground.com>, <wxunderground.com>, <undergroumdweather.com>, and <wonderunderground.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, The Weather Underground, Inc., provides Internet users with an online weather service at the <wunderground.com>, <weatherunderground.com> and <wund.com> domain names. Complainant owns a trademark registration for the THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,297,683 issued December 7, 1999). Complainant also owns a trademark registration for the WUNDERGROUND.COM mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,324,272 issued February 29, 2000).
Respondent, Above.com Domain Privacy, registered the disputed domain names no earlier than March 23, 2007. The disputed domain names resolve to generic pay-per-click directories advertising unrelated third-party websites and third-party websites providing competing weather 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 owns a trademark registration for the THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,297,683 issued December 7, 1999). The Panel may find that this USPTO trademark registration is sufficient to show Complainant’s rights in the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), regardless of the location of Respondent’s residence or business operations. See 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)); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the complainant has rights to the name when the mark is registered in a country even if the complainant has never traded in that country).
Complainant also owns a trademark registration for the WUNDERGROUND.COM mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,324,272 issued February 29, 2000). The Panel again finds that this USPTO trademark registration is conclusive proof of Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), even when Respondent lives or operates outside the U.S. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); 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 alleges that Respondent’s <eweatherunderground.com>, <weathereunderground.com>, <weatherubderground.com>, <weatheruncerground.com>, <weatherundeeground.com>, <weatherundergeound.com>, <weatherundergreound.com>, <weatherundergroudn.com>, <weatherundergtound.com>, <weatherunserground.com>, <weathreunderground.com>, <weeatherunderground.com>, <undergroundweathe.com>, <weatherudergroud.com>, <weatherundergrounnd.com>, <weatherunground.com>, <weathweunderground.com>, and <undergroumdweather.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND mark. Complainant asserts that these disputed domain names make one or more of the following changes to Complainant’s mark: add a letter, replace one letter with a different letter, delete letter(s), transpose two letters, transpose two terms, delete a term, and add the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). The Panel finds that misspellings of Complainant’s mark that either add, delete, transpose, or replace letters are not different enough to prevent a finding of confusing similarity according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); see also Hallelujah Acres, Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 805029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s <hacrs.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s HACRES mark because it omitted the letter “e” from the mark and added the generic top-level domain “.com”); see also 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”). The Panel also finds that that neither transposing two terms nor deleting a term removes the disputed domain names from the realm of confusing similarity. See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (holding that “the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ‘TESCO PERSONAL FINANCE’ mark in that it merely omits the descriptive term ‘personal.’”); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Herrington Hart, NIRT, FA 464790 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 1, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the use of transposed words, similar to transposed letters does not suffice to differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark to create a separate and distinct mark.”). Finally, the Panel holds that the addition of the gTLD is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). The Panel concludes that Respondent’s <eweatherunderground.com>, <weathereunderground.com>, <weatherubderground.com>, <weatheruncerground.com>, <weatherundeeground.com>, <weatherundergeound.com>, <weatherundergreound.com>, <weatherundergroudn.com>, <weatherundergtound.com>, <weatherunserground.com>, <weathreunderground.com>, <weeatherunderground.com>, <undergroundweathe.com>, <weatherudergroud.com>, <weatherundergrounnd.com>, <weatherunground.com>, <weathweunderground.com>, and <undergroumdweather.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
In satisfying its obligations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant is required to present a prima facie case alleging Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests. Complainant has met this burden, and therefore, the Policy shifts the burden to show rights and legitimate interests to Respondent. By defaulting, Respondent has failed to prove any rights and legitimate interests, however, and the Panel accordingly concludes that Respondent has none. The Panel also determines that it may accept Complainant’s allegations as true due to the absence of any counter-arguments by Respondent. See Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”); 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 will nevertheless consider the full record, however, to analyze Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests against the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors.
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant alleges that Respondent has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in Complainant’s mark or any of the disputed domain names. Complainant further asserts that it has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark in any disputed domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names does not reflect any association between Complainant and Respondent. The Panel may accordingly find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”); see also Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected).
Complainant states that Respondent’s disputed domain names all resolve to directories of pay-per-click links to third-party websites. The majority of Respondent’s resolving websites feature listings of pay-per-click links to third-parties offering weather-related services in competition with Complainant. The remainder of the resolving websites host directories of unrelated pay-per-click links to third-parties. The Panel finds that, regardless of whether the links compete with or are unrelated to Complainant, hosting a directory of pay-per-click links at a confusingly similar disputed domain name is inconsistent with Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) requiring a bona fide offering of goods or services or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) requiring a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. 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 Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Diverting customers, who are looking for products relating to the famous SEIKO mark, to a website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Complainant argues that the <eweatherunderground.com>, <weathereunderground.com>, <weatherubderground.com>, <weatheruncerground.com>, <weatherundeeground.com>, <weatherundergeound.com>, <weatherundergreound.com>, <weatherundergroudn.com>, <weatherundergtound.com>, <weatherunserground.com>, <weathreunderground.com>, <weeatherunderground.com>, <wndergrond.com>, <wnuderground.com>, <wujnderground.com>, <wuncerground.com>, <wundderground.com>, <wundeeground.com>, <wundefground.com>, <wunderbround.com>, <wundergronud.com>, <wundergroundc.com>, <wundergrounde.com>, <wundergroune.com>, <wundergrounnd.com>, <wundergrpound.com>, <wundergrpund.com>, <wundergrround.com>, <wundrerground.com>, <wundwerground.com>, <wundwrground.com>, <wunedrground.com>, <wunserground.com>, <wyunderground.com>, <gwunderground.com>, <weatherudergroud.com>, <weatherundergrounnd.com>, <weatherunground.com>, <weathweunderground.com>, <wunderderground.com>, <wundergronnd.com>, <wundergrownd.com>, <wundergrpond.com>, <wundgerground.com>, <wundrrground.com>, and <wxunderground.com> domain names are all created by intentionally misspelling Complainant’s mark in ways that resemble common typographical errors made by Internet users searching for Complainant. The Panel finds that registering such misspelled domain names constitutes typosquatting, which is evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in these disputed domain name according to 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 Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site.”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that the <eweatherunderground.com>, <gwunderground.com>, <undergroumdweather.com>, <undergroundweathe.com>, <weathereunderground.com>, <weathergound.com>, <weatherudergroud.com>, <weatheruncerground.com>, <weatherundeeground.com>, <weatherundergeound.com>, <weatherundergreound.com>, <weatherundergroudn.com>, <weatherundergrounnd.com>, <weatherundergtound.com>, <weatherunground.com>, <weatherunserground.com>, <weathreunderground.com>, weathweunderground.com>, <wndergrond.com>, <wnuderground.com>, <wujnderground.com>, <wuncerground.com>, <wundeeground.com>, <wunderbround.com>, <wunderderground.com>, <wundergronnd.com>, <wundergrounde.com>, <wundergroune.com>, <wundergrounnd.com>, <wundergrownd.com>, <wundergrpond.com>, <wundergrpound.com>, <wundergrpund.com>, <wundergrround.com>, <wundermaps.com>, <wundrerground.com>, <wundrrground.com>,<wundwrground.com>, <wunserground.com>, <wxunderground.com>, and <wyunderground.com> domain names all resolve to websites hosting a pay-per-click directory of links that compete with Complainant by directing Internet users to third-party websites offering online weather services and information. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of these disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s competitors illustrates an intent to disrupt Complainant’s business and bad faith registration and use pursuant to 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 asserts that Respondent registered the confusingly similar variations of Complainant’s marks as the disputed domain names in order to attract Internet users seeking Complainant’s online weather services and intentionally create a likelihood of confusion as to the source or affiliation of Respondent’s resolving websites. Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the disputed domain names in this manner in order to increase web traffic to its resolving websites displaying pay-per-click link directories. The Panel finds that as the pay-per-click links generate revenue for Respondent in the form of click-through fees, Respondent’s use of Complainant’s marks to attract and mislead consumers and increase visitors to Respondent’s websites indicates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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).”); see also Maricopa Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. College.com, LLC, FA 536190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2005) (“The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to a competing website. Because Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s PHOENIX COLLEGE mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, Respondent’s use of the <phoenixcollege.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel has previously concluded that the <eweatherunderground.com>, <weathereunderground.com>, <weatherubderground.com>, <weatheruncerground.com>, <weatherundeeground.com>, <weatherundergeound.com>, <weatherundergreound.com>, <weatherundergroudn.com>, <weatherundergtound.com>, <weatherunserground.com>, <weathreunderground.com>, <weeatherunderground.com>, <wndergrond.com>, <wnuderground.com>, <wujnderground.com>, <wuncerground.com>, <wundderground.com>, <wundeeground.com>, <wundefground.com>, <wunderbround.com>, <wundergronud.com>, <wundergroundc.com>, <wundergrounde.com>, <wundergroune.com>, <wundergrounnd.com>, <wundergrpound.com>, <wundergrpund.com>, <wundergrround.com>, <wundrerground.com>, <wundwerground.com>, <wundwrground.com>, <wunedrground.com>, <wunserground.com>, <wyunderground.com>, <gwunderground.com>, <weatherudergroud.com>, <weatherundergrounnd.com>, <weatherunground.com>, <weathweunderground.com>, <wunderderground.com>, <wundergronnd.com>, <wundergrownd.com>, <wundergrpond.com>, <wundgerground.com>, <wundrrground.com>, and <wxunderground.com> domain names are all examples of typosquatting. The Panel finds that this typosquatting supports a finding of bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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)); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use of the <microssoft.com> domain name as it merely misspelled the complainant’s MICROSOFT mark).
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 <eweatherunderground.com>, <weathereunderground.com>, <weatherubderground.com>, <weatheruncerground.com>, <weatherundeeground.com>, <weatherundergeound.com>, <weatherundergreound.com>, <weatherundergroudn.com>, <weatherundergtound.com>, <weatherunserground.com>, <weathreunderground.com>, <weeatherunderground.com>, <wndergrond.com>, <wnuderground.com>, <wujnderground.com>, <wuncerground.com>, <wundderground.com>, <wundeeground.com>, <wundefground.com>, <wunderbround.com>, <wundergronud.com>, <wundergroundc.com>, <wundergrounde.com>, <wundergroune.com>, <wundergrounnd.com>, <wundergrpound.com>, <wundergrpund.com>, <wundergrround.com>, <wundrerground.com>, <wundwerground.com>, <wundwrground.com>, <wunedrground.com>, <wunserground.com>, <wyunderground.com>, <gwunderground.com>, <undergroundweathe.com>, <weatherudergroud.com>, <weatherundergrounnd.com>, <weatherunground.com>, <weathweunderground.com>, <wunderderground.com>, <wundergronnd.com>, <wundergrownd.com>, <wundergrpond.com>, <wundermaps.com>, <wundgerground.com>, <wundrrground.com>, <wxunderground.com>, <undergroumdweather.com>, and <wonderunderground.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: April 5, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page