CrossFit, Inc. v. Results Plus Personal Training Inc
Claim Number: FA1305001498576
Complainant is CrossFit, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Ben Wagner of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., California, USA. Respondent is Results Plus Personal Training Inc. (“Respondent”), represented by Lenden F. Webb, California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <crossfitagawam.com>, <crossfitansonia.com>, <crossfitbeaconfalls.com>, <crossfitbedford.com>, <crossfitbethal.com>, <crossfitbethany.com>, <crossfitboylston.com>, <crossfitbradenton.com>, <crossfitbranford.com>, <crossfitbranfordct.com>, <crossfitbrick.com>, <crossfitbrookfield.com>, <crossfitcanaan.com>, <crossfitcanterbury.com>, <crossfitcapecoral.com>, <crossfitcertification.com>, <crossfitcherryhill.com>, <crossfitchicopee.com>, <crossfitclifton.com>, <crossfitcromwell.com>, <crossfitdartmouth.com>, <crossfitdavenport.com>, <crossfitdavie.com>, <crossfitdaytonabeach.com>, <crossfitdeepriver.com>, <crossfitdeltona.com>, <crossfitdevon.com>, <crossfiteaston.com>, <crossfiteastorange.com>, <crossfitedison.com>, <crossfitelizabeth.com>, <crossfitenfield.com>, <crossfitfacilities.com>, <crossfitfortmyersbeach.com>, <crossfitfoxboro.com>, <crossfitframingham.com>, <crossfitgloucester.com>, <crossfitgreenacres.com>, <crossfitgreenwich.com>, <crossfitgreenwichct.com>, <crossfitguilford.com>, <crossfitguilfordct.com>, <crossfithamden.com>, <crossfithamdenct.com>, <crossfitholyoke.com>, <crossfithomestead.com>, <crossfitirvington.com>, <crossfitkillingworth.com>, <crossfitlauderhill.com>, <crossfitlitchfield.com>, <crossfitmargate.com>, <crossfitmercerisland.com>, <crossfitmiamigardens.com>, <crossfitmisfits.com>, <crossfitnaugatuck.com>, <crossfitneedham.com>, <crossfitnewark.com>, <crossfitnewington.com>, <crossfitnewlondon.com>, <crossfitniantic.com>, <crossfitnorthhaven.com>, <crossfitnorthhavenct.com>, <crossfitnorthport.com>, <crossfitnorwich.com>, <crossfitoldlyme.com>, <crossfitpalmcoast.com>, <crossfitpanamacity.com>, <crossfitparadisevalley.com>, <crossfitpassaic.com>, <crossfitpaterson.com>, <crossfitpembrokepines.com>, <crossfitpensacolabeach.com>, <crossfitpinellaspark.com>, <crossfitplantation.com>, <crossfitpompanobeach.com>, <crossfitportstlucie.com>, <crossfitprospect.com>, <crossfitprovincetown.com>, <crossfitquincy.com>, <crossfitquinnipiac.com>, <crossfitrockyhill.com>, <crossfitsaintpetersburg.com>, <crossfitsanford.com>, <crossfitseymour.com>, <crossfitshelton.com>, <crossfitsimsbury.com>, <crossfitsouthbury.com>, <crossfitsouthington.com>, <crossfitsouthingtonct.com>, <crossfitsouthwindsor.com>, <crossfitspringfieldil.com>, <crossfitstuart.com>, <crossfitsunrise.com>, <crossfittamarac.com>, <crossfittaunton.com>, <crossfittolland.com>, <crossfittorrington.com>, <crossfittrenton.com>, <crossfituconn.com>, <crossfitunioncity.com>, <crossfitvenicebeach.com>, <crossfitwallinford.com>, <crossfitwallingfordct.com>, <crossfitweathersfield.com>, <crossfitwestbrook.com>, <crossfitwestport.com>, <crossfitwestportct.com>, <crossfitwilton.com>, <crossfitwolcott.com>, <crossfitwoodmont.com>, and <truthaboutcrossfit.com>, registered with Godaddy.Com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dr. Reinhard Schanda as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 7, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 8, 2013.
On May 08, 2013, Godaddy.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <crossfitagawam.com>, <crossfitansonia.com>, <crossfitbeaconfalls.com>, <crossfitbedford.com>, <crossfitbethal.com>, <crossfitbethany.com>, <crossfitboylston.com>, <crossfitbradenton.com>, <crossfitbranford.com>, <crossfitbranfordct.com>, <crossfitbrick.com>, <crossfitbrookfield.com>, <crossfitcanaan.com>, <crossfitcanterbury.com>, <crossfitcapecoral.com>, <crossfitcertification.com>, <crossfitcherryhill.com>, <crossfitchicopee.com>, <crossfitclifton.com>, <crossfitcromwell.com>, <crossfitdartmouth.com>, <crossfitdavenport.com>, <crossfitdavie.com>, <crossfitdaytonabeach.com>, <crossfitdeepriver.com>, <crossfitdeltona.com>, <crossfitdevon.com>, <crossfiteaston.com>, <crossfiteastorange.com>, <crossfitedison.com>, <crossfitelizabeth.com>, <crossfitenfield.com>, <crossfitfacilities.com>, <crossfitfortmyersbeach.com>, <crossfitfoxboro.com>, <crossfitframingham.com>, <crossfitgloucester.com>, <crossfitgreenacres.com>, <crossfitgreenwich.com>, <crossfitgreenwichct.com>, <crossfitguilford.com>, <crossfitguilfordct.com>, <crossfithamden.com>, <crossfithamdenct.com>, <crossfitholyoke.com>, <crossfithomestead.com>, <crossfitirvington.com>, <crossfitkillingworth.com>, <crossfitlauderhill.com>, <crossfitlitchfield.com>, <crossfitmargate.com>, <crossfitmercerisland.com>, <crossfitmiamigardens.com>, <crossfitmisfits.com>, <crossfitnaugatuck.com>, <crossfitneedham.com>, <crossfitnewark.com>, <crossfitnewington.com>, <crossfitnewlondon.com>, <crossfitniantic.com>, <crossfitnorthhaven.com>, <crossfitnorthhavenct.com>, <crossfitnorthport.com>, <crossfitnorwich.com>, <crossfitoldlyme.com>, <crossfitpalmcoast.com>, <crossfitpanamacity.com>, <crossfitparadisevalley.com>, <crossfitpassaic.com>, <crossfitpaterson.com>, <crossfitpembrokepines.com>, <crossfitpensacolabeach.com>, <crossfitpinellaspark.com>, <crossfitplantation.com>, <crossfitpompanobeach.com>, <crossfitportstlucie.com>, <crossfitprospect.com>, <crossfitprovincetown.com>, <crossfitquincy.com>, <crossfitquinnipiac.com>, <crossfitrockyhill.com>, <crossfitsaintpetersburg.com>, <crossfitsanford.com>, <crossfitseymour.com>, <crossfitshelton.com>, <crossfitsimsbury.com>, <crossfitsouthbury.com>, <crossfitsouthington.com>, <crossfitsouthingtonct.com>, <crossfitsouthwindsor.com>, <crossfitspringfieldil.com>, <crossfitstuart.com>, <crossfitsunrise.com>, <crossfittamarac.com>, <crossfittaunton.com>, <crossfittolland.com>, <crossfittorrington.com>, <crossfittrenton.com>, <crossfituconn.com>, <crossfitunioncity.com>, <crossfitvenicebeach.com>, <crossfitwallinford.com>, <crossfitwallingfordct.com>, <crossfitweathersfield.com>, <crossfitwestbrook.com>, <crossfitwestport.com>, <crossfitwestportct.com>, <crossfitwilton.com>, <crossfitwolcott.com>, <crossfitwoodmont.com>, and <truthaboutcrossfit.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.Com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 15, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 14, 2013 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@crossfitagawam.com, postmaster@crossfitansonia.com, postmaster@crossfitbeaconfalls.com, postmaster@crossfitbedford.com, postmaster@crossfitbethal.com, postmaster@crossfitbethany.com, postmaster@crossfitboylston.com, postmaster@crossfitbradenton.com, postmaster@crossfitbranford.com, postmaster@crossfitbranfordct.com, postmaster@crossfitbrick.com, postmaster@crossfitbrookfield.com, postmaster@crossfitcanaan.com, postmaster@crossfitcanterbury.com, postmaster@crossfitcapecoral.com, postmaster@crossfitcertification.com, postmaster@crossfitcherryhill.com, postmaster@crossfitchicopee.com, postmaster@crossfitclifton.com, postmaster@crossfitcromwell.com, postmaster@crossfitdartmouth.com, postmaster@crossfitdavenport.com, postmaster@crossfitdavie.com, postmaster@crossfitdaytonabeach.com, postmaster@crossfitdeepriver.com, postmaster@crossfitdeltona.com, postmaster@crossfitdevon.com, postmaster@crossfiteaston.com, postmaster@crossfiteastorange.com, postmaster@crossfitedison.com, postmaster@crossfitelizabeth.com, postmaster@crossfitenfield.com, postmaster@crossfitfacilities.com, postmaster@crossfitfortmyersbeach.com, postmaster@crossfitfoxboro.com, postmaster@crossfitframingham.com, postmaster@crossfitgloucester.com, postmaster@crossfitgreenacres.com, postmaster@crossfitgreenwich.com, postmaster@crossfitgreenwichct.com, postmaster@crossfitguilford.com, postmaster@crossfitguilfordct.com, postmaster@crossfithamden.com, postmaster@crossfithamdenct.com, postmaster@crossfitholyoke.com, postmaster@crossfithomestead.com, postmaster@crossfitirvington.com, postmaster@crossfitkillingworth.com, postmaster@crossfitlauderhill.com, postmaster@crossfitlitchfield.com, postmaster@crossfitmargate.com, postmaster@crossfitmercerisland.com, postmaster@crossfitmiamigardens.com, postmaster@crossfitmisfits.com, postmaster@crossfitnaugatuck.com, postmaster@crossfitneedham.com, postmaster@crossfitnewark.com, postmaster@crossfitnewington.com, postmaster@crossfitnewlondon.com, postmaster@crossfitniantic.com, postmaster@crossfitnorthhaven.com, postmaster@crossfitnorthhavenct.com, postmaster@crossfitnorthport.com, postmaster@crossfitnorwich.com, postmaster@crossfitoldlyme.com, postmaster@crossfitpalmcoast.com, postmaster@crossfitpanamacity.com, postmaster@crossfitparadisevalley.com, postmaster@crossfitpassaic.com, postmaster@crossfitpaterson.com, postmaster@crossfitpembrokepines.com, postmaster@crossfitpensacolabeach.com, postmaster@crossfitpinellaspark.com, postmaster@crossfitplantation.com, postmaster@crossfitpompanobeach.com, postmaster@crossfitportstlucie.com, postmaster@crossfitprospect.com, postmaster@crossfitprovincetown.com, postmaster@crossfitquincy.com, postmaster@crossfitquinnipiac.com, postmaster@crossfitrockyhill.com, postmaster@crossfitsaintpetersburg.com, postmaster@crossfitsanford.com, postmaster@crossfitseymour.com, postmaster@crossfitshelton.com, postmaster@crossfitsimsbury.com, postmaster@crossfitsouthbury.com, postmaster@crossfitsouthington.com, postmaster@crossfitsouthingtonct.com, postmaster@crossfitsouthwindsor.com, postmaster@crossfitspringfieldil.com, postmaster@crossfitstuart.com, postmaster@crossfitsunrise.com, postmaster@crossfittamarac.com, postmaster@crossfittaunton.com, postmaster@crossfittolland.com, postmaster@crossfittorrington.com, postmaster@crossfittrenton.com, postmaster@crossfituconn.com, postmaster@crossfitunioncity.com, postmaster@crossfitvenicebeach.com, postmaster@crossfitwallinford.com, postmaster@crossfitwallingfordct.com, postmaster@crossfitweathersfield.com, postmaster@crossfitwestbrook.com, postmaster@crossfitwestport.com, postmaster@crossfitwestportct.com, postmaster@crossfitwilton.com, postmaster@crossfitwolcott.com, postmaster@crossfitwoodmont.com, postmaster@truthaboutcrossfit.com. Also on May 15, 2013, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 13, 2013.
An Additional Submission from Complainant was received on June 18, 2013 It in a timely manner according to The Forum’s Supplemental Rule # 7.
On June 20, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Dr. Reinhard Schanda 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
· Complainant uses the CROSSFIT mark for many products and services, but primarily so that its licensed affiliates may promote the CROSSFIT mark through their gym businesses. Complainant’s CROSSFIT mark is used in the fields of fitness, nutrition, sports, exercise, competitions, footwear, clothing, and fundraising activities.
· Complainant has protected its interests in the CROSSFIT mark by registering the mark with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”). See Reg. No. 3,007,458 registered on Oct. 18, 2005; see also Reg. No. 3,826,111 registered on July 27, 2010.
· Complainant’s CROSS FIT mark specifically refers to a line of products and services that arise from Complainant’s various physical training and fitness programs. Complainant licenses use of the CROSSFIT marks to gyms all over the world who wish to become an affiliate of Complainant. Affiliates are thus allowed to use the CROSSFIT mark in the name of their gym, on apparel, and on the affiliate’s website. The standard practice among these affiliates has been to register the CROSSFIT mark in a domain name along with the region or city in which the gym operates (e.g., <crossfitboston.com>).
· Respondent has elected to register these 113 domain names. Most of the domain names do nothing but add the name of a famous or popular city and combine the city’s name with the CROSSFIT mark. The <crossfitcertification.com> and <crossfitfacilities.com> domain names merely add the generic terms “facilities” or “certifications,” evincing services that would be offered by Complainant and its affiliates through Complainant’s CROSSFIT mark.
· Respondent is not commonly known by the CROSSFIT in any such way that gives it a right to use the name for its own purposes. Respondent is not one of Complainant’s licensees or affiliates.
· Respondent began targeting the CROSSFIT mark in 2011 in an attempt to draw business away to his competing business under the “Results Plus” banner. Most of Respondent’s domain names resolve to nothing but parked websites, many of which include advertisements to competing businesses such as Respondent’s “Results Plus” business. At some point in time, all of the domain names were primarily used as parked pages, dedicated to hosting hyperlinks. Respondent cannot attempt to undo his previous uses by hosting anti-CROSSFIT content along with competing ads such as seen in the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name.
· Respondent registered the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name like he did all the others—to force the hand of Complainant’s affiliates into handing him a tidy sum of money. The gym of reference, CrossFit Misfits of Portland, Maine, simply adopted the domain name <crossfitmf.com> to bypass Respondent and his antics. Respondent responded to this by adding a Google blurb for the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name that contains laudatory and commendable language about CROSSFIT and the Complainant’s business—“CrossFit is a core strength and condition program. We have designed our program to elict [sic] as broad an adaptional response as possible.” Respondent seeks to lure Internet users to his <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name with this Google blurb, wherein the Internet users are then provided with blog posts and warnings that Complainant and the CROSSFIT business are dangerous, ineffective, and bad. Amidst these attacks on Complainant’s business are hyperlinks that take Internet users to Respondent’s “Results Plus” business where they are promised to receive a “smarter workout.” Thus, despite the personal views expressed on the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name, the website’s true purpose is to funnel Internet users to the competing “Results Plus” business.
· Both the <crossfitcertification.com> and <crossfitfacilities.com> domain names redirect Internet users to the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name, and merely perpetuate the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name’s illegitimate use as a method to disparage CROSSFIT and promote the competing “Results Plus” business.
· Respondent sought to register all of these domain names in order to get Complainant’s affiliates in the various cities embodied in these domain names to hand over cash to Respondent. Respondent personally admitted in an e-mail to Complainant’s affiliates that “I recently brought the name down $100 . . . for you $250 . . . I’ve been doing this for the last three years and been selling CrossFit names so far sold over 50 of 350.” Complainant’s business model relies on affiliates to use the CROSSFIT mark in their businesses. Respondent is profiting in the utmost bad faith by preemptively registering numerous domain names, knowing that these affiliates will have to use him as a middleman to get their domain names.
· Respondent has embarked upon a path of continuous and habitual infringement of the CROSSFIT mark. Respondent’s registration of at least the 113 domain names in this single proceeding is evidence of Respondent’s intended goal of preventing the CROSSFIT mark from being legitimately used in domain names.
· Respondent is using the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name to attack Complainant’s business whilst actively promoting its own “Results Plus” business line. Respondent’s conduct in this regard is certain to cause a disruption of Complainant’s business.
· Respondent uses each domain name, whether parked or active, to capitalize on the confusion of Internet users.
· Respondent uses the <crossfitcertification.com> and <crossfitfacilities.com> domain names to capitalize on initial interest confusion, as Internet users will enter these domain names primarily to find information about CROSSFIRE. These Internet users are then immediately rerouted to the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name’s lambasting of CROSSFIT and solicitations of “Results Plus” services.
B. Respondent
· Respondent generally rejects the argument that these domain names are confusingly similar.
· Respondent admits that he never made a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor did he intend to offer any bona fide goods.
· Respondent points out that none of the websites had any active use at all. Respondent thus could not have had the requisite content to redirect Internet users away from Complainant’s business.
· Respondent claims that there is no evidence that any of the domain names featured hyperlinks to third-party websites.
· Respondent states that he only sold three domain names for $350. Respondent reasonably believed that the sale of these domain names was lawful. Respondent is not in the business of selling domain names
· No pattern of bad faith exists. No prior offenses have been committed.
· Respondent cannot disrupt Complainant’s business through its possession of inactive domain names.
· Respondent never purported to be an affiliate of Complainant, and thus these inactive domain names could never have confused Internet users into believing Complainant was operating the websites.
· Respondent registered these domain names only after discussing his intentions with GoDaddy.com, LLC. Respondent concluded, based on these conversations, that it was acceptable for him to register the domain names in hopes of later selling them off. Respondent believed when registering these domain names that what he was doing was completely acceptable.
C. Additional Submissions
In its Additional Submission dated June 18, 2013 Complainant only submitted some additional documents for Panel’s consideration.
Procedural Issue: Concurrent Court Proceedings
Complainant has filed a lawsuit against Respondent in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Complainant seeks longer term relief in the Federal court claim that is independent of, and not obtainable in the current UDRP proceedings. Complainant asserts these claims will involve cybersquatting, trademark infringement, and trademark dilution of famous or distinctive marks, common law unfair competition, and statutory unfair competition under California state law.
Respondent acknowledges that he has been served with Complainant’s lawsuit. Respondent notes that Complainant seeks monetary damages far in excess of $9,000,000 (nine million) USD. Respondent requests the Panel to suspend this proceeding, particularly in light of this ongoing dispute, but as well because GoDaddy.com, LLC, led on Respondent into believing he could legally register and use these domain names in the manner that he did. Respondent provides this Panel with copies of the summons and complaint for the United States federal court proceedings.
In situations where concurrent court proceedings are pending, as may occur in this dispute should Complainant follow through on its assertions, some panels have chosen to proceed with the UDRP filing. See eProperty Direct LLC v. Miller, FA 836419 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 3, 2007) (holding that the panel could decide the dispute under Rule 18(a) of the Policy “since the legal proceedings referred to by the parties appear to be concluded and Orders made. Moreover,… those Orders do not touch directly on the disposition of the disputed domain name or on the parties’ intellectual property rights.”).
Even in cases, where both the concurrent court proceeding and the administrative proceeding dealt with similar issues about the ownership or use of disputed domain names, Panels have proceeded to a decision. See W. Fla. Lighting v. Ramirez, D2008-1122 (WIPO Oct. 2, 2008) (deciding to proceed under the UDRP despite concurrent court proceedings because “the Panel does not find that it is necessary or advantageous to await a judicial determination of the issues raised in the federal litigation in order to reach a decision strictly under the Policy. This administrative proceeding under the Policy concerns only control of the Domain Name, not any of the other remedies at issue in the federal litigation. It is not binding on the court, and it does not preclude the prosecution of any claims, defenses, or counterclaims in the federal litigation”); see also Mary’s Futons, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 1012059 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 13, 2007) (choosing to proceed under the UDRP despite concurrent court proceedings for multiple reasons, including that the proceedings appeared to be filed in a court that did not commonly adjudicate intellectual property issues and that the court proceedings were filed by the respondent on the same day the response in these proceedings was filed).
The Panel in this case considers that a suspension of this case is not appropriate. The Panel will not, therefore, suspend or terminate this administrative proceeding.
Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer
Respondent consents to transfer all of the disputed domain names to Complainant. However, Complainant did not seem receptive to Respondent when Respondent made his offer to transfer the domain names to Complainant for a fee. Respondent points out that it would need “just compensation” of $1,300.00 total, which it claims is ultimately far less than it has spent maintaining the 113 domain names during this time. The Panel agrees that a consent to transfer does not ordinarily arise when the transfer is subject to the condition precedent of a markholder’s payment of fees. The Panel finds that Complainant has not implicitly consented in its Complaint to the transfer of the disputed domain names without a decision on the merits by the Panel. The Panel further finds that the “consent-to-transfer” approach is but one way for cybersquatters to avoid adverse findings against them, especially when a “consent” in fact involves the transfer of money to Respondent. In Graebel Van Lines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 1195954 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2008), the panel stated that:
Respondent has admitted in his response to the complaint of Complainant that it is ready to offer the transfer without inviting the decision of the Panel in accordance with the Policy. However, in the facts of this case, the Panel is of the view that the transfer of the disputed domain name deserves to be along with the findings in accordance with the Policy.
The Panel in this case is of the same view and therefore decides to analyze the case under the elements of the UDRP.
The Panel finds that:
1. the Domain Names <crossfitagawam.com>, <crossfitansonia.com>, <crossfitbeaconfalls.com>, <crossfitbedford.com>, <crossfitbethal.com>, <crossfitbethany.com>, <crossfitboylston.com>, <crossfitbradenton.com>, <crossfitbranford.com>, <crossfitbranfordct.com>, <crossfitbrick.com>, <crossfitbrookfield.com>, <crossfitcanaan.com>, <crossfitcanterbury.com>, <crossfitcapecoral.com>, <crossfitcertification.com>, <crossfitcherryhill.com>, <crossfitchicopee.com>, <crossfitclifton.com>, <crossfitcromwell.com>, <crossfitdartmouth.com>, <crossfitdavenport.com>, <crossfitdavie.com>, <crossfitdaytonabeach.com>, <crossfitdeepriver.com>, <crossfitdeltona.com>, <crossfitdevon.com>, <crossfiteaston.com>, <crossfiteastorange.com>, <crossfitedison.com>, <crossfitelizabeth.com>, <crossfitenfield.com>, <crossfitfacilities.com>, <crossfitfortmyersbeach.com>, <crossfitfoxboro.com>, <crossfitframingham.com>, <crossfitgloucester.com>, <crossfitgreenacres.com>, <crossfitgreenwich.com>, <crossfitgreenwichct.com>, <crossfitguilford.com>, <crossfitguilfordct.com>, <crossfithamden.com>, <crossfithamdenct.com>, <crossfitholyoke.com>, <crossfithomestead.com>, <crossfitirvington.com>, <crossfitkillingworth.com>, <crossfitlauderhill.com>, <crossfitlitchfield.com>, <crossfitmargate.com>, <crossfitmercerisland.com>, <crossfitmiamigardens.com>, <crossfitmisfits.com>, <crossfitnaugatuck.com>, <crossfitneedham.com>, <crossfitnewark.com>, <crossfitnewington.com>, <crossfitnewlondon.com>, <crossfitniantic.com>, <crossfitnorthhaven.com>, <crossfitnorthhavenct.com>, <crossfitnorthport.com>, <crossfitnorwich.com>, <crossfitoldlyme.com>, <crossfitpalmcoast.com>, <crossfitpanamacity.com>, <crossfitparadisevalley.com>, <crossfitpassaic.com>, <crossfitpaterson.com>, <crossfitpembrokepines.com>, <crossfitpensacolabeach.com>, <crossfitpinellaspark.com>, <crossfitplantation.com>, <crossfitpompanobeach.com>, <crossfitportstlucie.com>, <crossfitprospect.com>, <crossfitprovincetown.com>, <crossfitquincy.com>, <crossfitquinnipiac.com>, <crossfitrockyhill.com>, <crossfitsaintpetersburg.com>, <crossfitsanford.com>, <crossfitseymour.com>, <crossfitshelton.com>, <crossfitsimsbury.com>, <crossfitsouthbury.com>, <crossfitsouthington.com>, <crossfitsouthingtonct.com>, <crossfitsouthwindsor.com>, <crossfitspringfieldil.com>, <crossfitstuart.com>, <crossfitsunrise.com>, <crossfittamarac.com>, <crossfittaunton.com>, <crossfittolland.com>, <crossfittorrington.com>, <crossfittrenton.com>, <crossfituconn.com>, <crossfitunioncity.com>, <crossfitvenicebeach.com>, <crossfitwallinford.com>, <crossfitwallingfordct.com>, <crossfitweathersfield.com>, <crossfitwestbrook.com>, <crossfitwestport.com>, <crossfitwestportct.com>, <crossfitwilton.com>, <crossfitwolcott.com>, <crossfitwoodmont.com> and <truthaboutcrossfit.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks,
2. the Respondent has not established rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names <crossfitagawam.com>, <crossfitansonia.com>, <crossfitbeaconfalls.com>, <crossfitbedford.com>, <crossfitbethal.com>, <crossfitbethany.com>, <crossfitboylston.com>, <crossfitbradenton.com>, <crossfitbranford.com>, <crossfitbranfordct.com>, <crossfitbrick.com>, <crossfitbrookfield.com>, <crossfitcanaan.com>, <crossfitcanterbury.com>, <crossfitcapecoral.com>, <crossfitcertification.com>, <crossfitcherryhill.com>, <crossfitchicopee.com>, <crossfitclifton.com>, <crossfitcromwell.com>, <crossfitdartmouth.com>, <crossfitdavenport.com>, <crossfitdavie.com>, <crossfitdaytonabeach.com>, <crossfitdeepriver.com>, <crossfitdeltona.com>, <crossfitdevon.com>, <crossfiteaston.com>, <crossfiteastorange.com>, <crossfitedison.com>, <crossfitelizabeth.com>, <crossfitenfield.com>, <crossfitfacilities.com>, <crossfitfortmyersbeach.com>, <crossfitfoxboro.com>, <crossfitframingham.com>, <crossfitgloucester.com>, <crossfitgreenacres.com>, <crossfitgreenwich.com>, <crossfitgreenwichct.com>, <crossfitguilford.com>, <crossfitguilfordct.com>, <crossfithamden.com>, <crossfithamdenct.com>, <crossfitholyoke.com>, <crossfithomestead.com>, <crossfitirvington.com>, <crossfitkillingworth.com>, <crossfitlauderhill.com>, <crossfitlitchfield.com>, <crossfitmargate.com>, <crossfitmercerisland.com>, <crossfitmiamigardens.com>, <crossfitmisfits.com>, <crossfitnaugatuck.com>, <crossfitneedham.com>, <crossfitnewark.com>, <crossfitnewington.com>, <crossfitnewlondon.com>, <crossfitniantic.com>, <crossfitnorthhaven.com>, <crossfitnorthhavenct.com>, <crossfitnorthport.com>, <crossfitnorwich.com>, <crossfitoldlyme.com>, <crossfitpalmcoast.com>, <crossfitpanamacity.com>, <crossfitparadisevalley.com>, <crossfitpassaic.com>, <crossfitpaterson.com>, <crossfitpembrokepines.com>, <crossfitpensacolabeach.com>, <crossfitpinellaspark.com>, <crossfitplantation.com>, <crossfitpompanobeach.com>, <crossfitportstlucie.com>, <crossfitprospect.com>, <crossfitprovincetown.com>, <crossfitquincy.com>, <crossfitquinnipiac.com>, <crossfitrockyhill.com>, <crossfitsaintpetersburg.com>, <crossfitsanford.com>, <crossfitseymour.com>, <crossfitshelton.com>, <crossfitsimsbury.com>, <crossfitsouthbury.com>, <crossfitsouthington.com>, <crossfitsouthingtonct.com>, <crossfitsouthwindsor.com>, <crossfitspringfieldil.com>, <crossfitstuart.com>, <crossfitsunrise.com>, <crossfittamarac.com>, <crossfittaunton.com>, <crossfittolland.com>, <crossfittorrington.com>, <crossfittrenton.com>, <crossfituconn.com>, <crossfitunioncity.com>, <crossfitvenicebeach.com>, <crossfitwallinford.com>, <crossfitwallingfordct.com>, <crossfitweathersfield.com>, <crossfitwestbrook.com>, <crossfitwestport.com>, <crossfitwestportct.com>, <crossfitwilton.com>, <crossfitwolcott.com>, <crossfitwoodmont.com>,and <truthaboutcrossfit.com>
3. the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names <crossfitagawam.com>, <crossfitansonia.com>, <crossfitbeaconfalls.com>, <crossfitbedford.com>, <crossfitbethal.com>, <crossfitbethany.com>, <crossfitboylston.com>, <crossfitbradenton.com>, <crossfitbranford.com>, <crossfitbranfordct.com>, <crossfitbrick.com>, <crossfitbrookfield.com>, <crossfitcanaan.com>, <crossfitcanterbury.com>, <crossfitcapecoral.com>, <crossfitcertification.com>, <crossfitcherryhill.com>, <crossfitchicopee.com>, <crossfitclifton.com>, <crossfitcromwell.com>, <crossfitdartmouth.com>, <crossfitdavenport.com>, <crossfitdavie.com>, <crossfitdaytonabeach.com>, <crossfitdeepriver.com>, <crossfitdeltona.com>, <crossfitdevon.com>, <crossfiteaston.com>, <crossfiteastorange.com>, <crossfitedison.com>, <crossfitelizabeth.com>, <crossfitenfield.com>, <crossfitfacilities.com>, <crossfitfortmyersbeach.com>, <crossfitfoxboro.com>, <crossfitframingham.com>, <crossfitgloucester.com>, <crossfitgreenacres.com>, <crossfitgreenwich.com>, <crossfitgreenwichct.com>, <crossfitguilford.com>, <crossfitguilfordct.com>, <crossfithamden.com>, <crossfithamdenct.com>, <crossfitholyoke.com>, <crossfithomestead.com>, <crossfitirvington.com>, <crossfitkillingworth.com>, <crossfitlauderhill.com>, <crossfitlitchfield.com>, <crossfitmargate.com>, <crossfitmercerisland.com>, <crossfitmiamigardens.com>, <crossfitmisfits.com>, <crossfitnaugatuck.com>, <crossfitneedham.com>, <crossfitnewark.com>, <crossfitnewington.com>, <crossfitnewlondon.com>, <crossfitniantic.com>, <crossfitnorthhaven.com>, <crossfitnorthhavenct.com>, <crossfitnorthport.com>, <crossfitnorwich.com>, <crossfitoldlyme.com>, <crossfitpalmcoast.com>, <crossfitpanamacity.com>, <crossfitparadisevalley.com>, <crossfitpassaic.com>, <crossfitpaterson.com>, <crossfitpembrokepines.com>, <crossfitpensacolabeach.com>, <crossfitpinellaspark.com>, <crossfitplantation.com>, <crossfitpompanobeach.com>, <crossfitportstlucie.com>, <crossfitprospect.com>, <crossfitprovincetown.com>, <crossfitquincy.com>, <crossfitquinnipiac.com>, <crossfitrockyhill.com>, <crossfitsaintpetersburg.com>, <crossfitsanford.com>, <crossfitseymour.com>, <crossfitshelton.com>, <crossfitsimsbury.com>, <crossfitsouthbury.com>, <crossfitsouthington.com>, <crossfitsouthingtonct.com>, <crossfitsouthwindsor.com>, <crossfitspringfieldil.com>, <crossfitstuart.com>, <crossfitsunrise.com>, <crossfittamarac.com>, <crossfittaunton.com>, <crossfittolland.com>, <crossfittorrington.com>, <crossfittrenton.com>, <crossfituconn.com>, <crossfitunioncity.com>, <crossfitvenicebeach.com>, <crossfitwallinford.com>, <crossfitwallingfordct.com>, <crossfitweathersfield.com>, <crossfitwestbrook.com>, <crossfitwestport.com>, <crossfitwestportct.com>, <crossfitwilton.com>, <crossfitwolcott.com>, <crossfitwoodmont.com> and <truthaboutcrossfit.com>, in bad faith.
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.
Complainant claims that it uses the CROSSFIT mark on many products and services, but primarily for licensing the use of the mark to gym businesses around the world. Complainant avers that its CROSSFIT mark is used in the fields of fitness, nutrition, sports, exercise, competitions, footwear, clothing, and fundraising activities. Complainant argues that it has protected its interests in the CROSSFIT mark by registering the mark with the USPTO. See Reg. No. 3,007,458 registered on Oct. 18, 2005; Reg. No. 3,826,111 registered on July 27, 2010. The Panel agrees that Complainant is secure in its CROSSFIT mark’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as both parties reside within the state of California within the United States. See 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.”).
Complainant notes that Respondent has elected to register these 113 domain names. Complainant argues that most of the domain names do nothing but add the name of a famous or popular city and combine the city’s name with the CROSSFIT mark. Complainant particularly notes that the <crossfitcertification.com> and <crossfitfacilities.com> domain names merely add generic terms that evince facilities or certifications that would be offered by Complainant through its CROSSFIT mark. The Panel notes that several other domain names, for example <truthaboutcrossfit.com> or <crossfiremisfits.com> add generic terms to the mark. The Panel is of the view that Respondent’s vast collection of domain names merely take the CROSSFIT mark and add geographic or generic terms, neither of which create a meaningful distinction between the CROSSFIT mark and the respective domain names. See Gannett Co. v. Chan, D2004-0117 (WIPO Apr. 8, 2004) (“…it is well established that a domain name consisting of a well-known mark, combined with a geographically descriptive term or phrase, is confusingly similar to the mark.”); Quixtar Inv., Inc. v. Smithberger, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that because the domain name <quixtar-sign-up.com> incorporates in its entirety the complainant’s distinctive mark, QUIXTAR, the domain name is confusingly similar). The Panel finally agrees that all instances of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” are insignificant for purposes of the Policy. 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.”). As a result the Panel concludes that all of these disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the CROSSFIT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not assume the burden of proof, but may establish a right or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy:
(a) He has made preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute;
(b) He is commonly known by the domain name, even if he has not acquired any trademark rights; or
(c) He intends to make a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
The Panel determines that the Complainant has discharged the onus of proof for the second criterion: The Respondent has failed to demonstrate any legitimate right or interest.
According to the majority of Panel decisions this Panel also takes the position that while Complainant has the burden of proof on this issue, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications, Inc., D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000); Inter-Continental Hotel Corporation v. Khaled Ali Soussi, D2000-0252 WIPO July 5, 2000); Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the Complainant has asserted that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the Respondent”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent.”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the CROSSFIT mark in any such way that gives it a right to use the name for its own purposes. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not one of Complainant’s licensees or affiliates. The Panel acknowledges that while the standard under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) is whether Respondent is commonly known by the domain names (not the mark), Respondent has identified as “Dave Parise” of “Results Plus” with no explanation given as to Respondent’s connection with the domain names registered, and thus there is no basis to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the domain names. See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent began targeting the CROSSFIT mark in 2011 in an attempt to draw business away to his competing business under the “Results Plus” business. Complainant notes that most of Respondent’s domain names resolve to nothing but parked websites, many of which include advertisements to Respondent’s “Results Plus” competing gym and fitness business. Complainant argues that regardless of the current uses of any of these domain names, at some point in time all of the domain names were primarily used as parked pages that were dedicated to hosting hyperlinks. Complainant contends that Respondent cannot attempt to undo his previous uses by hosting anti-CROSSFIT content along with competing ads. The Panel notes that virtually all of the domain names, excluding only <crossfitmisfits.com>, <crossfitcertification.com>, and <crossfitfacilities.com>, resolve to web-pages parked by GoDaddy.com, LLC, featuring a random assortment of competing and unrelated hyperlinks. The Panel further notes that Respondent has admitted that there was never any bona fide offering made through any of the domain names. The Panel is of the view that neither unrelated nor competing hyperlinks may serve as a basis for a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); 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 argues that Respondent registered the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name like he did all the others to force the hand of Complainant’s affiliates into handing him money. Complainant explains that the gym of reference is the CrossFit Misfits Gym of Portland, Maine. Complainant notes that the CrossFit Misfits Gym simply adopted the domain name <crossfitmf.com> to bypass Respondent’s attempt to sell the domain name. Complainant argues that Respondent responded to this by adding a Google blurb for the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name that states: “CrossFit is a core strength and condition program. We have designed our program to elict as broad an adaptional response as possible.” Complainant contends that Respondent seeks to lure Internet users to his <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name with this Google blurb, wherein the Internet users are then provided with blog posts and warnings that Complainant and the CROSSFIT business is dangerous, ineffective, and bad for consumers. Complainant notes that amidst these attacks on Complainant’s business are hyperlinks that take Internet users to Respondent’s “Results Plus” business websites where they are promised to receive a “smarter workout.” Complainant concludes that thus, despite the personal views expressed on the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name, the website’s true purpose is to funnel Internet users to the competing “Results Plus” business. Complainant further notes that both the <crossfitcertification.com> and <crossfitfacilities.com> domain names redirect Internet users to the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name, and merely perpetuate the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name’s illegitimate use as a method to disparage CROSSFIT and promote the competing “Results Plus” business. The Panel notes that the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name, to which the <crossfitcertification.com> and <crossfitfacilities.com> domain names purportedly resolve, references a “CrossFit ‘Cult’” and equates Complainant’s business to the Taliban. The Panel acknowledges that although the website reads like a run-of-the-mill gripe-site or free-speech site, there are prominent advertisements that make the strong inference that Respondent’s business and products are a better alternative to Complainant’s CROSSFIT business. The Panel agrees that the negative appropriation of the CROSSFIT mark for the ultimate purpose of ruining the CROSSFIT mark in the eyes of Internet users so as to redirect them to the competing “Results Plus” business owned by Respondent does not rise to the level of a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (holding that the respondent’s showing that it “has a right to free speech and a legitimate interest in criticizing the activities of organizations like the Complainant . . . is a very different thing from having a right or legitimate interest in respect of [a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark]”); Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Complainant argues that Respondent sought to register all of these domain names in order to get Complainant’s affiliates in the various cities embodied in these domain names to hand over sums of cash to Respondent. Complainant points out that Respondent personally admitted in an e-mail to Complainant’s affiliates that “I recently brought the name down $100. . . for you $250. . . I’ve been doing this for the last three years and been selling CrossFit names so far sold over 50 of 350.” Complainant pleads that its business model relies on affiliates to use the CROSSFIT mark in their businesses. Complainant argues that Respondent is profiting in bad faith by preemptively registering numerous domain names, knowing that these affiliates will have to use Respondent as a middleman to get their domain names. The Panel agrees that Respondent’s decision to register such a numerous amount of domain names to resell them exclusively to Complainant and its affiliates is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) bad faith use and registration. See Pocatello Idaho Auditorium Dist. v. CES Mktg. Group, Inc., FA 103186 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002) ("[w]hat makes an offer to sell a domain [name] bad faith is some accompanying evidence that the domain name was registered because of its value that is in some way dependent on the trademark of another, and then an offer to sell it to the trademark owner or a competitor of the trademark owner").
Complainant next alleges that Respondent has embarked upon a path of continuous and habitual infringement of the CROSSFIT mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s registration of at least the 113 domain names in this single proceeding is evidence of Respondent’s intended goal of preventing the CROSSFIT mark from being legitimately used in domain names. The Panel agrees that Respondent’s pattern of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) is adequately established through his registration and use of 113 domain names that include the entire CROSSFIT mark. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Deiana, FA 339579 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2004) (“It is found and determined that Respondent is in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because Respondent registered the disputed domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting its YAHOO! mark in the corresponding domain names. The registration of the [<ayhooo.com>, <ayhooo.net >, <ayhooo.org>, <ayhoooindia.com>, <ayhoookids.com>, <ayhooorealty.com>, <ayhooorealty.net>, <ayhoooshopping.com>, <ayhooo-uk.com>, and <searchayhooo.com>] domain names herein constitutes a pattern of registering trademark-related domain names in bad faith.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name to attack Complainant’s business whilst actively promoting its own “Results Plus” business line. Complainant argues that Respondent’s conduct in this regard is certain to cause a disruption of Complainant’s business. The Panel notes that the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name resolves to a website that features negative commentary about CROSSFIT, referring to Complainant’s CEO as a “lunatic,” with explicit advertisements for Respondent’s own business. The Panel agrees that the disparaging comments about Complainant’s business in conjunction with the explicit promotion of Respondent’s own business is tantamount to bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Surface Prot. Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between the complainant and the respondent, the respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt the complainant's business and create user confusion); Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website).
Complainant generally argues that Respondent uses each domain name, whether parked or active, to capitalize on the confusion of Internet users. The Panel notes that many of the domain names resolve to parked websites. The Panel notes that the <crossfitcertification.com> and <crossfitfacilities.com> domain names reroute the Internet users to the <crossfitmisfits.com> domain name and its webpages dedicated to lambasting CROSSFIT and promoting “Results Plus” services. The Panel concludes that Respondent has employed all of the disputed domain names in a Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith endeavor to confuse Internet users into believing Complainant or its CROSSFIT mark is at the source of the content, all so that Respondent can advance its goals to generate revenue. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); Access Res. Servs., Inc. v. Individual, FA 97750 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 13, 2001) (“Respondent's registration and use of the <misscleosucks.com> domain name to promote competing psychic services, assumedly for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <crossfitagawam.com>, <crossfitansonia.com>, <crossfitbeaconfalls.com>, <crossfitbedford.com>, <crossfitbethal.com>, <crossfitbethany.com>, <crossfitboylston.com>, <crossfitbradenton.com>, <crossfitbranford.com>, <crossfitbranfordct.com>, <crossfitbrick.com>, <crossfitbrookfield.com>, <crossfitcanaan.com>, <crossfitcanterbury.com>, <crossfitcapecoral.com>, <crossfitcertification.com>, <crossfitcherryhill.com>, <crossfitchicopee.com>, <crossfitclifton.com>, <crossfitcromwell.com>, <crossfitdartmouth.com>, <crossfitdavenport.com>, <crossfitdavie.com>, <crossfitdaytonabeach.com>, <crossfitdeepriver.com>, <crossfitdeltona.com>, <crossfitdevon.com>, <crossfiteaston.com>, <crossfiteastorange.com>, <crossfitedison.com>, <crossfitelizabeth.com>, <crossfitenfield.com>, <crossfitfacilities.com>, <crossfitfortmyersbeach.com>, <crossfitfoxboro.com>, <crossfitframingham.com>, <crossfitgloucester.com>, <crossfitgreenacres.com>, <crossfitgreenwich.com>, <crossfitgreenwichct.com>, <crossfitguilford.com>, <crossfitguilfordct.com>, <crossfithamden.com>, <crossfithamdenct.com>, <crossfitholyoke.com>, <crossfithomestead.com>, <crossfitirvington.com>, <crossfitkillingworth.com>, <crossfitlauderhill.com>, <crossfitlitchfield.com>, <crossfitmargate.com>, <crossfitmercerisland.com>, <crossfitmiamigardens.com>, <crossfitmisfits.com>, <crossfitnaugatuck.com>, <crossfitneedham.com>, <crossfitnewark.com>, <crossfitnewington.com>, <crossfitnewlondon.com>, <crossfitniantic.com>, <crossfitnorthhaven.com>, <crossfitnorthhavenct.com>, <crossfitnorthport.com>, <crossfitnorwich.com>, <crossfitoldlyme.com>, <crossfitpalmcoast.com>, <crossfitpanamacity.com>, <crossfitparadisevalley.com>, <crossfitpassaic.com>, <crossfitpaterson.com>, <crossfitpembrokepines.com>, <crossfitpensacolabeach.com>, <crossfitpinellaspark.com>, <crossfitplantation.com>, <crossfitpompanobeach.com>, <crossfitportstlucie.com>, <crossfitprospect.com>, <crossfitprovincetown.com>, <crossfitquincy.com>, <crossfitquinnipiac.com>, <crossfitrockyhill.com>, <crossfitsaintpetersburg.com>, <crossfitsanford.com>, <crossfitseymour.com>, <crossfitshelton.com>, <crossfitsimsbury.com>, <crossfitsouthbury.com>, <crossfitsouthington.com>, <crossfitsouthingtonct.com>, <crossfitsouthwindsor.com>, <crossfitspringfieldil.com>, <crossfitstuart.com>, <crossfitsunrise.com>, <crossfittamarac.com>, <crossfittaunton.com>, <crossfittolland.com>, <crossfittorrington.com>, <crossfittrenton.com>, <crossfituconn.com>, <crossfitunioncity.com>, <crossfitvenicebeach.com>, <crossfitwallinford.com>, <crossfitwallingfordct.com>, <crossfitweathersfield.com>, <crossfitwestbrook.com>, <crossfitwestport.com>, <crossfitwestportct.com>, <crossfitwilton.com>, <crossfitwolcott.com>, <crossfitwoodmont.com>, and <truthaboutcrossfit.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dr. Reinhard Schanda, Panelist
Dated: June 28, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page