Diamante Cabo San Lucas, LLC & LOR Management S.A. de C.V. v. Blue Sky Limos
Claim Number: FA1204001440949
Complainant is Diamante Cabo San Lucas, LLC & LOR Management S.A. de C.V. (“Complainant”), represented by Geri L. Haight of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Blue Sky Limos (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <diamantescabosanlucas.com>, <diamantesgolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantescabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabo.net>, <diamantescabo.com>, <diamantescabogolf.com>, <diamantescabogolf.net>, <diamantegolfcabo.com>, <diamantegolfcabo.net>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamanategolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabogolf.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.net>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.net>, <cabodiamante.com>, <cabodiamante.net>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.com>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.net>, <golfdiamantecabo.com>, <golfdiamantecabo.net>, <golfdiamantecabosanlucas.com>, <golfciamantecabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.com>, and <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.net>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 April 25, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 26, 2012.
On April 25, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <diamantescabosanlucas.com>, <diamantesgolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantescabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabo.net>, <diamantescabo.com>, <diamantescabogolf.com>, <diamantescabogolf.net>, <diamantegolfcabo.com>, <diamantegolfcabo.net>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamanategolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabogolf.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.net>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.net>, <cabodiamante.com>, <cabodiamante.net>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.com>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.net>, <golfdiamantecabo.com>, <golfdiamantecabo.net>, <golfdiamantecabosanlucas.com>, <golfciamantecabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.com>, and <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.net> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 May 3, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 23, 2012 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@diamantescabosanlucas.com, postmaster@diamantesgolfcabosanlucas.com, postmaster@diamantegolfcabosanlucas.net, postmaster@diamantescabosanlucas.net, postmaster@diamantecabo.net, postmaster@diamantescabo.com, postmaster@diamantescabogolf.com, postmaster@diamantescabogolf.net, postmaster@diamantegolfcabo.com, postmaster@diamantegolfcabo.net, postmaster@diamantegolfcabosanlucas.com, postmaster@diamanategolfcabosanlucas.net, postmaster@diamantecabogolf.net, postmaster@diamantecabosanlucasgolf.com, postmaster@diamantecabosanlucasgolf.net, postmaster@diamantescabosanlucasgolf.com, postmaster@diamantescabosanlucasgolf.net, postmaster@cabosanlucasdiamante.com, postmaster@cabosanlucasdiamante.net, postmaster@cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.com, postmaster@cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.net, postmaster@cabodiamante.com, postmaster@cabodiamante.net, postmaster@cabodiamantegolfcourse.com, postmaster@cabodiamantegolfcourse.net, postmaster@golfdiamantecabo.com, postmaster@golfdiamantecabo.net, postmaster@golfdiamantecabosanlucas.com, postmaster@golfciamantecabosanlucas.net, postmaster@diamantecabosanlucasmexico.com, and postmaster@diamantecabosanlucasmexico.net. Also on May 3, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 May 24, 2012, 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, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, LOR Management S.A. de C.V., is an affiliate of Complainant, Diamante Cabo San Lucas, LLC. Together, Complainants own the DIAMANTE CABO SAN LUCAS & Design mark. Complainants began using the mark in connection with golf resort projects in 2002. Complainants own a trademark registration for the DIAMANTE CABO SAN LUCAS & Design mark with the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (“MIIP”) (Reg. No. 989,788 registered June 28, 2007).
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on October 21, 2011.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent formerly used the <diamantescabosanlucas.com> domain name to resolve to a website that featured fake and misleading information about Complainant.
Respondent currently uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a parked website that contains hyperlink advertisements for competitors of Complainant. The <diamantesgolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantescabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabo.net>, <diamantescabo.com>, <diamantescabogolf.com>, <diamantescabogolf.net>, <diamantegolfcabo.com>, <diamantegolfcabo.net>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamanategolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabogolf.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.net>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.net>, <cabodiamante.com>, <cabodiamante.net>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.com>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.net>, <golfdiamantecabo.com>, <golfdiamantecabo.net>, <golfdiamantecabosanlucas.com>, <golfciamantecabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.com>, and <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.net> domain names also resolve to a parked website hosting similarly competing hyperlink advertisements.
Respondent registered all of the disputed domain names only after Complainant rejected Respondent’s proposal for Internet marketing services.
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark and the disputed domain names are evidence of typosquatting.
Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names after Complainant rejected Respondent’s business proposal and Respondent’s subsequent offer to remove infringing content if Complainant accepted the proposal are both evidence of bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
There are two Complainants in this matter: LOR Management S.A. de C.V. and Diamante Cabo San Lucas, LLC. Complainants contend that Complainant, LOR Management S.A. de C.V., is an affiliate of Complainant, Diamante Cabo San Lucas, LLC.
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games and International Olympic Committee v. Hardeep Malik, FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Investments, Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in American Family Health Services Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 5, 2001) (“This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.”).
The Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint establishes a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants and will treat them all as a single entity in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the relief requested.
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."
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.
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.”).
Complainant contends that it owns a trademark registration for the DIAMANTE CABO SAN LUCAS & Design mark with the MIIP (Reg. No. 989,788 registered June 28, 2007). Past panels have determined that a trademark registration with MIIP was sufficient to establish rights in a complainant’s mark. See Teck Res. Ltd. v. Amexa Ltda., FA 1420960 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 27, 2012) (finding that a trademark registration with the MIIP was sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Univision Commc’ns Inc. v. Boyiko, FA 1429870 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 22, 2012) (concluding that the complainant’s registration of its mark with the MIIP sufficiently demonstrated the complainant’s rights in the mark). The Panel notes that Respondent does not reside or operate in Mexico but instead resides or operates in Canada. However, prior panels have held that a complainant need only demonstrate a trademark registration with one national trademark authority and that a complainant is not required to register a mark within the respondent’s country. 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 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). Consequently, the Panel concludes that Complainant owns rights in its DIAMANTE CABO SAN LUCAS & Design mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIAMANTE CABO SAN LUCAS mark. Complainant argues that the disputed domain names only differ from Complainant’s mark by using common misspellings of Complainant’s mark or adding a generic term. The Panel notes that the <diamantescabosanlucas.com>, <diamantescabosanlucas.net>, <diamantescabo.com>, <diamantescabogolf.com>, <diamantescabogolf.net>, <diamanategolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.net>, <golfciamantecabosanlucas.net>, and <golfciamantecabosanlucas.net> domain names do contain common misspellings of Complainant’s mark, which the Panel determines is not sufficient to remove the disputed domain names from the realm of confusing similarity. See Am. Online, Inc. v. David, FA 104980 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (“The misspelling of a famous mark does not diminish the confusingly similar nature between the marks and the disputed domain names.”).
The Panel further notes that the <diamantesgolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantescabogolf.com>, <diamantescabogolf.net>, <diamantegolfcabo.com>, <diamantegolfcabo.net>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamanategolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.net>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.net>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.com>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.net>, <golfdiamantecabo.com>, <golfdiamantecabo.net>, <golfdiamantecabosanlucas.com>, <golfciamantecabosanlucas.net>, and <golfciamantecabosanlucas.net> domain names all contain the added terms “golf” and/or “course” and the <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.com> and <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.net> domain names contain the term “mexico.” The Panel finds that the terms “golf” and “course” describe Complainant’s golf resort business and the term “mexico” is a geographic term. The Panel concludes that the addition of either the descriptive term or the geographic term fail to adequately distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Karandish, FA 563833 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 2, 2005) (finding that the addition of the descriptive term “talk” to a registered mark does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. Kumar, FA 744436 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding that the <indiaticketmaster.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s TICKETMASTER mark). The Panel notes that in the <diamantecabo.net>, <diamantescabo.com>, <diamantescabogolf.com>, <diamantescabogolf.net>, <diamantegolfcabo.com>, <diamantegolfcabo.net>, <diamantecabogolf.net>, <cabodiamante.com>, <cabodiamante.net>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.com>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.net>, <golfdiamantecabo.com>, and <golfdiamantecabo.net> domain names, Respondent deleted some portion of Complainant’s DIAMANTE CABO SAN LUCAS mark, which is insufficient to remove the disputed domain names from the realm of confusing similarity. See WestJet Air Ctr., Inc. v. W. Jets LLC, FA 96882 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2001) (finding that the <westjets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, where the complainant holds the WEST JET AIR CENTER mark). Moreover, the Panel notes that in the <cabosanlucasdiamante.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.net>, <cabodiamante.com>, <cabodiamante.net>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.com>, and <cabodiamantegolfcourse.net> domain names Respondent rearranges the terms of Complainant’s mark. The Panel also finds that this alteration does not adequately distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See NCRAS Mgmt., LP v. Cupcake City, D2000-1803 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2001) (finding the domain name <nationalrentalcar.com> confusingly similar to the mark NATIONAL CAR RENTAL and holding that “merely inverting the terms of a mark . . . is quite insufficient to dispel consumer confusion; the mark and the resulting domain name are simply too similar to each other”).
Finally, the Panel notes that all of the disputed domain names remove the spaces found in Complainant’s mark and add a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which the Panel considers irrelevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”). Based on the comparison between the disputed domain names and Complainant’s mark, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIAMANTE CABO SAN LUCAS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant avers that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant claims that Respondent registered the disputed domain names after Complainant adopted and began using the DIAMANTE CABO SAN LUCAS mark, which Complainant argues is evidence that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information identifies “Blue Sky Limos” as the registrant of the disputed domain names, which the Panel finds indicates that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names. Finally, the Panel regards Respondent’s failure to respond to the case and failure to provide any evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the dispute domain names as proof that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to 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).
Complainant contends that Respondent formerly used the <diamantescabosanlucas.com> domain name to resolve to a website that featured false and misleading information about Complainant. Complainant claims that Respondent used this disputed domain name for this purpose because Respondent was attempting to convince Complainant to accept Respondent’s business proposal. Complainant further argues that Respondent featured Complainant’s trademark on the resolving website, but Complainant claims that when an Internet user clicked on Complainant’s mark, the Internet user was redirected to a competing, third-party website. Based on this information, the Panel finds that Respondent’s former use of the <diamantescabosanlucas.com> domain name did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Weekley Homes, L.P. v. Fix My House Or Else?, FA 96609 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2001) (finding that establishment of a website containing criticism is not a legitimate use of the <davidweekleyhome.com> domain name because the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant's DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES mark); see also Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (holding that the respondent had not demonstrated a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use when “the website resolving from the disputed domain name displays links to travel products and services, which directly compete with Complainant’s business”).
Complainant claims that Respondent currently uses the <diamantescabosanlucas.com> domain name to resolve to a parked website that contains hyperlink advertisements for competitors of Complainant. Complainant alleges that the <diamantesgolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantescabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabo.net>, <diamantescabo.com>, <diamantescabogolf.com>, <diamantescabogolf.net>, <diamantegolfcabo.com>, <diamantegolfcabo.net>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamanategolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabogolf.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.net>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.net>, <cabodiamante.com>, <cabodiamante.net>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.com>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.net>, <golfdiamantecabo.com>, <golfdiamantecabo.net>, <golfdiamantecabosanlucas.com>, <golfciamantecabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.com>, and <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.net> domain names resolve to similar websites. Complainant asserts that the hyperlink advertisements found on the resolving websites are pay-per-click hyperlinks, which the Panel infers indicates that Respondent commercially benefits from the hyperlink advertisements. Thus, the Panel determines that Respondent currently uses all of the disputed domain names to make neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that, because the “[r]espondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring a series of advertising links to various third-parties, many of whom offer products and services in direct competition with those offered under [the complainant’s] mark,” the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Complainant has proven this element.
According to Complainant, “Complainant expressly refused to accept Respondent’s business proposal and, thereafter, Respondent registered the Domain Names in order to force Complainant to accept the terms of [Respondent’s] business proposal.” Complainant additionally claims that Respondent contacted Complainant’s representatives by e-mail and provided them with a hyperlink to the website associated with the <diamantescabosanlucas.com> domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent offered to remove all negative content in exchange for a fee of $165,000. While Complainant does not specifically argue that this evidence indicates an offer to sell under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses all of the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) and the Panel determines that Respondent registered the disputed domain names for the purpose of transferring the domain names to Complainant and that Respondent’s contacts with Complainant indicate an offer to sell. See Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Domain For Sale VMI, D2000-1195 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (“[T]he manner in which the Respondent chose to identify itself and its administrative and billing contacts both conceals its identity and unmistakably conveys its intention, from the date of the registration, to sell rather than make any use of the disputed domain name.”); see also Gutterbolt, Inc. v. NYI Bldg. Prods. Inc., FA 96076 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding that use of a domain name as a bargaining tool in an effort to receive compensation for a failed business transaction is evidence of bad faith).
Complainant also does not make any specific allegations regarding whether or not the disputed domain names were registered or are being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). However, the Panel notes that Complainant previously claimed under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) that Respondent currently uses all of the disputed domain names to host competing hyperlink advertisements and that Respondent formerly used the <diamantescabosanlucas.com> domain name to resolve to a website containing criticism and one hyperlink, which resolved to Complainant’s competitor. The Panel determines that Respondent creates confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain names by registering confusingly similar domain names and attempts to profit from that confusion by receiving pay-per-click fees. The Panel holds that Respondent registered and uses all of the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”).
Complainant accuses Respondent of typosquatting by registering common misspellings of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain names. While Complainant makes this argument regarding all of the disputed domain names, the Panel notes that only the <diamantescabosanlucas.com> and <diamantescabosanlucas.net> domain names contain common misspellings of Complainant’s mark alone. The Panel finds that the <diamantesgolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabo.net>, <diamantescabo.com>, <diamantescabogolf.com>, <diamantescabogolf.net>, <diamantegolfcabo.com>, <diamantegolfcabo.net>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamanategolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabogolf.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.net>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.net>, <cabodiamante.com>, <cabodiamante.net>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.com>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.net>, <golfdiamantecabo.com>, <golfdiamantecabo.net>, <golfdiamantecabosanlucas.com>, <golfciamantecabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.com>, and <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.net> domain names all contain further alterations to Complainant’s mark that would not satisfy the typosquatting requirements. Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent is guilty of typosquatting regarding the <diamantescabosanlucas.com> and <diamantescabosanlucas.net> domain names, which is evidence that Respondent registered and uses the <diamantescabosanlucas.com> and <diamantescabosanlucas.net> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form).
Finally, Complainant claims that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names after Complainant rejected Respondent’s business proposal is sufficient evidence that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark at the time the disputed domain names were registered. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <diamantescabosanlucas.com>, <diamantesgolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantescabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabo.net>, <diamantescabo.com>, <diamantescabogolf.com>, <diamantescabogolf.net>, <diamantegolfcabo.com>, <diamantegolfcabo.net>, <diamantegolfcabosanlucas.com>, <diamanategolfcabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabogolf.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantecabosanlucasgolf.net>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.com>, <diamantescabosanlucasgolf.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamante.net>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.com>, <cabosanlucasdiamantegolf.net>, <cabodiamante.com>, <cabodiamante.net>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.com>, <cabodiamantegolfcourse.net>, <golfdiamantecabo.com>, <golfdiamantecabo.net>, <golfdiamantecabosanlucas.com>, <golfciamantecabosanlucas.net>, <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.com>, and <diamantecabosanlucasmexico.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 1, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page