Cable News Network, Inc. f/k/a Cable News Network, LP, LLLP v. Sami Salman / Cairo News Network
Claim Number: FA1312001535770
Complainant is Cable News Network, Inc. f/k/a Cable News Network, LP, LLLP (“Complainant”), represented by Brian J. Winterfeldt of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Washington D.C., USA. Respondent is Sami Salman / Cairo News Network (“Respondent”), United Arab Emirates.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cnn25.com>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 20, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 20, 2013.
On December 23, 2013, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <cnn25.com> domain name is registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 December 27, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 16, 2014 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@cnn25.com. Also on December 27, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 17, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant is a leading international media and entertainment company. Complainant has used the service mark CNN for more than thirty years to identify its news and information services, which currently reach nearly one billion people worldwide. In addition to its 24-hour television networks, Complainant operates a news and information website at <cnn.com>. Complainant’s famous name and mark CNN is protected in countries around the world, including the United States, the European Union, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and other countries in the Middle East.
Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name <cnn25.com>, which Complainant contends is confusingly similar to its CNN mark. The disputed domain name was registered on January 5, 2013. Complainant states that the registrant of the disputed domain name was listed as Hamdan Zayed in November 2013, when Complainant learned of the registration and contacted the registrant regarding Complainant’s objections to the use of the domain name. Complainant did not receive a reply to this communication, and the registration record for the domain name was subsequently changed to conceal the registrant’s identity through the use of a proxy service. The proxy service was apparently removed after this proceeding was initiated, and the registration record currently reflects the name of Respondent, Sami Salman / Cairo News Network, with the same Dubai address that had previously been listed for Hamdan Zayed. Complainant asserts that “Hamdan Zayed” is in fact an alter ego of Respondent.
Complainant states that the disputed domain name is being used to host a competing news website containing commercial links to third parties, from which Respondent presumably receives click-through fees. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its CNN mark. Complainant states further that there was no business called CNN 25 or Cairo News Network in existence when the domain name was registered, which occurred long after Complainant established rights in its CNN mark. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a competing news website is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. Based upon these allegations, Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a competing news website containing monetized links represents an attempt to divert Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Complainant also claims that Respondent’s conduct shows an intent to disrupt Complainant’s business; that Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark; and that Respondent acted in bad faith by attempting to conceal its identity. On these grounds Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used 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.
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.”).
The disputed domain name combines Complainant’s CNN mark with the number 25 and the top-level domain suffix “.com”. These additions fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Google Inc. v. NURINET / Noorinet / NURINET, FA 1502299 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 24, 2013) (finding <google24.com> confusingly similar to GOOGLE); Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / mustafa Yildiz, D2013-1146 (WIPO Aug. 12, 2013) (finding <ikea35.com> confusingly similar to IKEA). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Complainant has made its prime facie case, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of rights or legitimate interests. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name appears to be Panel to be pretextual, infringing, or both; and Respondent has offered nothing to rebut this supposition. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has met its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered in January 2013, and the only apparent purpose for which it has been used is in connection with a website that seems calculated to generate profits by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant or its mark. Such use is indicative of bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., Cable News Network, Inc. f/k/a Cable News Network, LP, LLLP v. news site, FA 1501517 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 28, 2013) (finding bad faith based in part upon use of domain name for website containing paraphrased CNN content and pay-per-click links). The Panel finds on this basis that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cnn25.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: January 30, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page