AccountNow, Inc. v. ME New Enterprise / Mayni Efrem
Claim Number: FA1111001417493
Complainant is AccountNow, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is ME New Enterprise / Mayni Efrem (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <accountnow.co>, registered with eNom, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 28, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 5, 2011.
On November 29, 2011, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <accountnow.co> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 7, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 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@accountnow.co. Also on December 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 January 3, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <accountnow.co> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ACCOUNTNOW mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <accountnow.co> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <accountnow.co> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, AccountNow, Inc., is a provider of financial solutions for United States consumers that do not have established credit or traditional banking relationships. Complainant holds trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for the ACCOUNTNOW mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,175,043 registered November 21, 2006).
Respondent, ME New Enterprise / Mayni Efrem, registered the <accountnow.co> domain name on July 20, 2010. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website that features links to Complainant’s competitors and other unrelated websites.
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.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), a complainant can establish rights in its asserted mark through evidence that it owns a valid trademark registration with the USPTO. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”). So long as a complainant can establish rights in any jurisdiction, it does not matter for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) whether those rights are in the country of a respondent. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction); see also Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction). In the instant proceeding, Complainant has presented the Panel with a trademark registation that it owns with the USPTO for the ACCOUNTNOW mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,175,043 registered November 21, 2006). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The second prong of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis is a determination of whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the asserted mark. In this instance Complainant argues that Respondent’s <accountnow.co> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ACCOUNTNOW mark. Complainant correctly notes that the addition of a top-level domain, such as the current country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.co,” does not factor into the analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent’s <accountnow.co> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ACCOUNTNOW mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See World Wrestling Fed'n Entm't, Inc. v. Rapuano, DTV2001-0010 (WIPO May 23, 2001) (“The addition of the country code top level domain (ccTLD) designation <.tv> does not serve to distinguish [the disputed domain] names from the complainant’s marks since ‘.tv’ is a common Internet address identifier that is not specifically associated with Respondent.”); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <accountnow.co> domain name. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Once the Complainant has produced a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. Due to the Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See 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); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Nonetheless, the Panel will continue to evaluate the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the <accountnow.co> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that it has not granted Respondent permission to use its ACCOUNTNOW mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known as the <accountnow.co> domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “ME New Enterprise / Mayni Efrem,” which does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known as the disputed domain name. Respondent has not produced any evidence to show that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains various third-party links to competing and unrelated websites. Such links are housed under headings such as “Checking Account,” “Account Now,” “Prepaid Visa Card,” and others. Complainant argues that Respondent profits from such use by collecting click-through fees for routing Internet users to these other websites. Respondent has chosen not to respond to these proceedings. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not making 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) through its use of the <accountnow.co> domain name as a links directory website. See 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)); see also ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Complainant contends that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting, although not in the traditional sense, through its registration and use of the <accountnow.co> domain name. Complainant asserts that the domain name was not registered to fit within the country code “.co” but to capitalize on Internet users’ misspelling of “.com.” Based upon the use of the website as identified by Complainant, the Panel agrees and finds that using Complainant’s mark with the a misspelled version of “.com” is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”); 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 that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to present a listing of various hyperlinks, many of which resolve to the websites of Complainant’s competitors in the financial services market. The Panel finds that such use disrupts Complainant’s business as some Internet users will be routed to the identified competitors. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by purposely targeting Complainant in order to disrupt its business. 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 Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names).
Further, Respondent is presumably profiting from such use of Complainant’s mark through the receipt of click-through or affiliate fees. Many panels have decided that the hosting of a commercial website that is designed to route Internet users to a variety of competing and unrelated businesses constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as it attempts to capitalize on confusion regarding the affiliation of the disputed domain name for the respondent’s own profit. See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes); see also 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). The Panel finds bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel has previously found that Respondent’s registration and use of the <accountnow.co> domain name constitutes typosquatting. The Panel further finds that Respondent typosquatting is also evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Canadian Tire Corp. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because the respondent “created ‘a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location’. . . through Respondent’s persistent practice of ‘typosquatting’”); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds that 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 <accountnow.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 17, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page