Guinness World Records Limited v. Rong Zhou
Claim Number: FA1107001396749
Complainant is Guinness World Records Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Marsha K. Hoover of Marchall, Gerstein & Borun, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Rong Zhou (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 1, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 5, 2011.
On July 6, 2011, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 July 7, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 27, 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@guinnessbookofworldrecords.net. Also on July 7, 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 August 1, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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 the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
A. Complainant’s Business and Website
Guinness World Records Limited (“Guinness World Records” or “Complainant”) is the keeper of records and publisher of the world-famous publication “Guinness World Records,” formerly named the “Guinness Book of World Records,” and related media offerings. First published in 1955, the annual Guinness World Records book is published in more than 100 countries and 25 languages. In addition to the book, more than a dozen television series have been filmed that document world record breaking attempts in various countries including the UK, United States, Australia, Italy, Spain, India and China.
Complainant owns over 200 trademark registrations of its mark GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS throughout the world. Of particular note due to Registrant’s residence, Guinness World Records owns 9 registered trademarks in the People’s Republic of China, all which consist of or incorporate the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark. Accordingly, Complainant’s rights in China and the rest of the world are superior to those of the Respondent.
Complainant has had a web presence with its GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark since 1999. Complainant operates <guinnessworldrecords.com>, which was registered on March 15, 1999. Complainant has used the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark prominently on the website since its launch.
B. Relationship between the Parties
There is not, nor has there ever been, any license or other business relationship between Complainant and Respondent. Accordingly, Respondent has no permission whatsoever to use Complainant’s trademark.
C. Respondent’s Business and Website
Currently, and for a period of time, Respondent has maintained a website associated with the disputed domain name, located at <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net > (“Disputed Domain”). Respondent’s website purports to contain information about world records certified by Complainant, and contains repeated references to GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS by its former name, GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS, causing confusion with Complainant’s own website and services. Respondent obtained the Disputed Domain several years after Complainant’s Chinese trademark registrations issued and nearly fifty years after Complainant began publishing its books. Respondent’s site features third-party advertising.
D. Respondent’s Identity
Respondent attempted to shield his identity by using a proxy registration. Complainant filed a complaint through the Domains By Proxy website, and after Respondent failed to respond, the registrar revealed the identity of Respondent to Complainant as set forth above.
9. legal argument
A. FIRST ELEMENT: The Respondent’s domain name is nearly identical to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant owns over 200 registered trademarks for the mark GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS worldwide. Further, Complainant began using the mark GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS, the identical wording that is incorporated into the disputed domain name, in 1955. In 1998, Complainant began using the shortened mark GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS. The element “guinnessbookofworldrecords” in the Disputed Domain is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark, and is identical to its historical mark. Many members of the public still associate Complainant with the previous form of its mark, and use the marks interchangeably.
GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS. The addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name “.net” to Respondent’s domain name is without legal significance and does not serve to differentiate Respondent’s Disputed Domain. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
Complainant owns well-established rights in its famous GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark due to its long use and numerous registrations of the mark throughout the world. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark.”); see also 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.”). Hence, Complainant has satisfied the first element of its case pursuant to ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(i).
B. SECOND ELEMENT: Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain.
The content of Respondent’s website very clearly demonstrates that the Respondent’s objective in registering and using the Disputed Domain is to lure viewers to its site through its infringement of Complainant’s trademark and to then exploit their confusion, profiting from the sale of third-party advertising to the damage of Complainant.
(i) Respondent has never used the Disputed Domain with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name at issue. Respondent obviously selected the Disputed Domain specifically because of its near identity to Complainant’s registered GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark, and is using the mark to sell advertising. This negates any presumption of legitimate use. See eBay Inc. v. Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s entire mark in domain names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate use.)
Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domains is intended to attract Internet users to his directly competing site, taking advantage of the fame and popularity of Complainant and its trademark. This is not bona fide use. See Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC. Case No. D2005-0517 (WIPO 2005) (“Respondent appears to be using the domain name in an attempt to attract Internet users to its own gaming services, thus taking advantage of the notoriety of Complainant and its trademark. The Panel does not consider such use bona fide.”).
The Panel may rightfully conclude that Respondent is without rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain. Biogen, Inc. v. Kel Ellis, KELCO, D2002-0679 (WIPO Sept. 10, 2002)(finding no legitimate rights in the disputed domain name therein, based upon, inter alia, constructive notice of complainant’s registration). “A domain name registrant generally lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name where a complainant has prior rights in a mark which precedes a respondent’s registration of the domain name.” Quinn v. Zournas, FA 610713 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 17, 2006).
(ii) Respondent was aware of Complainant’s marks prior to registration of the Disputed Domain.
There can be no better evidence of Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s valuable intellectual property rights than the offending website itself, which boldly pirates Complainant’s mark and purports to compete with Complainant in providing world record information. Respondent is making an obvious attempt to substitute for Complainant’s site, and attract viewers to its site for exposure to the advertising it sells. Where, as here, Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s rights in a mark at the time of domain registration, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain. See e.g. F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Transure Enterprise Ltd. D2008-0422 (WIPO May 26, 2008); Quinn v. Zournas, FA 610713, and Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Dangos & Partners, D2002-1115 (WIPO Feb. 3, 2003).
(iii) Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain is not for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy provides that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name if it is not making any legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of that disputed domain name. In this instance, Respondent does not offer any non-commercial, fair use information at the Disputed Domain. Instead, Respondent has used the Disputed Domain to advertise third-party goods and services after drawing traffic to the site by using the infringing Disputed Domain. Respondent profits from the Internet traffic to the site due to the confusion with Complainant’s mark.
Respondent’s display of purported GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS information is akin to selling a counterfeit product. Respondent’s website proclaims in bold font: “Guinness Book of Records has best guinness articles.” The public is likely to be deceived and confused as to the source of the information displayed on the site. In Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003), the panel found that the respondent’s use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a website selling goods and services similar to those the complainant offered was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Millennium C.A., FA 105775 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2002) (“Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i).”).
C. THIRD ELEMENT: The Disputed Domains were registered and are being used in bad faith.
Respondent’s website is prima facie evidence of his bad faith, and manifests the clear intention to trade off the goodwill of the Complainant. GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS is a famous mark. As the Panel commented in a case brought by the owner of another famous mark, the Disney company, "[g]iven the Complainants numerous trademark registrations for, and its wide reputation in, [Complainant’s mark], . . . it is not possible to conceive of a plausible circumstance in which the Respondent could legitimately use the domain name [at issue]." Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Cupcake City and Cupcake Patrol, D20001-0489 (WIPO June 19, 2001), quoting Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO February 18, 2000). The same is true of this case. It is not possible to conjure a scenario in which Respondent’s use can be anything but wrongful and illegitimate. “[T]here is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively.” Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002).
(ii) Respondent’s is purposefully disrupting Complainant’s business by intentionally causing confusion.
According to ¶4(b) of the Policy, a respondent’s use of a domain name to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website constitutes bad faith through disruption of Complainant’s business. Respondent’s website bears witness to the fact that he registered and is using the Disputed Domain in bad faith.
As Complainant has established, the Respondent uses the Disputed Domain commercially, intending to cause, and has likely caused, confusion among Internet users for the purpose of attracting advertisers and viewer traffic. A respondent’s practice of diverting users to websites that promote the complainant’s competitors disrupts the complainant’s business and constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007). Respondent is himself competing with Complainant by imitating Complainant’s publication of record information and selling advertising on its website to advertisers who might otherwise choose to advertise on Complainant’s site. This conduct is unacceptable and contravenes the Policy. In Almco Inc. v. Almco, Inc., FA 560535 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2005), the Panel concluded that use of “the almco.com domain name, which is identical to Complainant’s ALMCO mark, to operate a website that provides goods and services in direct competition with Complainant’s business . . . constitutes disruption of Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to [the] Policy.” See also Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Ostanik, D2000-1611 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (“The fact that Respondent has taken essentially Complain[ant’s] mark as its domain name is evidence of bad faith.”).
Respondent’s selection of a domain name identical to Complainant’s original mark and nearly identical to its registered mark for the purpose of promoting its own “records” business is obviously intended to cause confusion among consumers and capitalize on Complainant’s reputation. While much of Respondent’s content is nonsensical, it appears that he has attempted to mimic Complainant’s record information to the extent necessary to attract advertisers and viewers. See Southern Exposure v. Southern Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with complainant’s business). Clearly, Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain for the purpose of creating confusion for commercial gain.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant Guinness World Records Limited keeps records and publishes the Guinness World Records, which is published in more than 100 countries and 25 languages. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”):
SIPO
Reg. No. 962487 registered March 14, 1997;
Reg. No. 757005 registered August 25, 2000;
Reg. No. 2024202 registered January 28, 2003;
Reg. No. 1744886 registered April 7, 2002;
USPTO
Reg. No. 2824273 registered March 23, 2004;
Reg. No. 2845206 registered May 25, 2004; &
Reg. No. 2942315 registered April 19, 2005.
Respondent Rong Zhou registered the <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net> domain name on December 28, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to contain information about world records certified by Complainant, making several references to Complainant’s former name (“Guinness Book of World Records”) and featuring numerous third-party advertising links.
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 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 argues it is known and recognized throughout the world and has secured trademark registrations for its GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark to protect its interests and reputation. Complainant has registered the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark with numerous trademark authorities around the world, including with the USPTO and the SIPO in China, where Respondent is located:
SIPO
Reg. No. 962487 registered March 14, 1997;
Reg. No. 757005 registered August 25, 2000;
Reg. No. 2024202 registered January 28, 2003;
Reg. No. 1744886 registered April 7, 2002;
USPTO
Reg. No. 2,824,273 registered March 23, 2004;
Reg. No. 2,845,206 registered May 25, 2004; &
Reg. No. 2,942,315 registered April 19, 2005.
Prior panels have established firm precedent that registering a mark with a country’s trademark authorities is strong evidence of rights in a mark. This Panel concludes Complainant has effectively proven its rights in the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark with its multiple trademark registrations with the USPTO and the SIPO. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶4(a)(i)).
Complainant alleges Respondent’s <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the only differences between the two are the omission of the spaces between terms, the addition of the terms “book” and “of” and the attached suffix and generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net.” It should be noted Complainant’s mark used to contain these additional words. Based on prior holdings in Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Sadler, FA 250236 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2004), and AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 21, 2006), finding that added words do not prevent confusing similarity, the Panel determines the addition of the terms under the facts of this case do not remove the disputed domain name from the realm of confusing similarity. The Panel also finds, consistently with decisions in Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) and Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007), that neither omitting spaces nor attaching the gTLD differentiates the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Panel concludes Respondent’s <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) is satisfied.
Complainant asserts Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net> domain name. Policy ¶4(a)(ii) requires Complainant first establish a prima facie case before the burden to demonstrate rights and legitimate interests transfers to Respondent. The Panel finds Complainant has met this initial burden. 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 Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because the respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed. In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”). Out of an abundance of caution, the Panel will consider the evidence in the record according to the Policy ¶4(c) factors to determine whether Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends there is no license or other business relationship between Complainant and Respondent. In addition, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name shows the registrant is “Rong Zhou” which is unrelated to the <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net> domain name. Based on this information and the lack of other evidence to the contrary, the Panel concludes Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and consequently lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark).
Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net> domain name to advertise third-party goods and services in the form of pay-per-click links and through prolific use of Complainant’s mark on the resolving website. Previous panels have held using a confusingly similar domain name to host a pay-per-click directory website is not consistent with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(i) and ¶4(c)(iii). See Fox News Network, LLC v. Reid, D2002-1085 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to generate revenue via advertisement and affiliate fees is not a bona fide offering of goods or services); 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)). In this case, the Panel concurs with these previous panels and finds Respondent’s use of the <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net> domain name does not satisfy Policy ¶4(c)(i) or Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
Finally, the text on Respondent’s site is gibberish. Having a web site of gibberish does not constitute fair use nor a bona fide offering of goods or services (absent any information to the contrary).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) is satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent uses the <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net> domain name to divert Internet users to Complainant’s competitors. Complainant argues Respondent himself is competing with Complainant by imitating Complainant’s publication of record information and selling advertising on its website to advertisers who might otherwise choose to advertise on Complainant’s website. Other than the advertisements, Respondent’s web site is gibberish…which suggests the only “real” portions of Respondent’s web site are the advertisements. Complainant contends Respondent’s activities are disrupting Complainant’s business and show bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶4(b)(iii). In line with the holdings of Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006), which held that the use of pay-per-click link directories diverting consumers to competitors indicated bad faith, and EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000), which held that bad faith is shown where a confusingly similar domain name is used to disrupt Complainant’s business, the Panel concurs with Complainant. While one may certainly use a web site to advertise, the actual use of this web under these facts raises the rebuttable presumption the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant alleges the confusing similarity between Complainant’s mark and the <guinnessbookofworldrecords.com> domain name is intended to attract consumers interested in Complainant and cause confusion among Internet users arriving at the website. As the website is populated with pay-per-click links, Respondent aims to profit from this diverted and confused Internet traffic through pay-per-click fees generated by the links. The text on the web site has no meaning because it is gibberish. The Panel finds Respondent’s efforts to attract Internet users to its website using Complainant’s mark in order to create confusion and increase profits reveals 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 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 Policy ¶4(a)(iii) is 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 <guinnessbookofworldrecords.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: August 2, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page