Aetna Inc. v. Peter Carrington a/k/a
Party Night, Inc.
Claim
Number: FA0304000154527
Complainant is
Aetna Inc., Hartford, CT (“Complainant”) represented by
Faye A. Dion. Respondent is Peter Carrington a/k/a Party Night,
Inc., Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <aetnauhc.com>, registered with Key-Systems
Gmbh.
The
undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to
the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 11, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 15, 2003.
On
April 16, 2003, Key-Systems Gmbh confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <aetnauhc.com> is registered with Key-Systems Gmbh and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems Gmbh has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems Gmbh registration
agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by
third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the "Policy").
On
April 16, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
May 6, 2003 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@aetnauhc.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
May 13, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter,
Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the 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."
Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents
submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's
Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems
applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <aetnauhc.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AETNA and USHC marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <aetnauhc.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aetnauhc.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant has
used the AETNA mark since 1853 in connection with its insurance, financial and
health care services. Complainant first
registered its AETNA mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in
1923. Complainant currently holds
numerous trademark registrations in the United States and abroad including
Registration Numbers 1,939,423 and 822,577.
Complainant also
uses the USHC mark in relation to its health care services. Complainant registered the mark with the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as Registration Number 2,065,185 on May 27,
1997.
Complainant
holds the domain name registrations for numerous domain names that incorporate
its marks including <aetna.com> and <aetnaushc.com>. Complainant’s <aetna.com> website
received over 366 million hits in 2002 and over 40 million hits in March 2003
alone.
Respondent,
Peter Carrington a/k/a Party Night, registered the <aetnauhc.com>
domain name on April 13, 2002.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users
to <hanky-panky-college.com>, <prescription-drugs.org> and
<mp3messenger.com> on a rotating basis.
These websites offer pornographic material, penis enlargement pills, and
movie and music downloads. Respondent
is a repeat cybersquatter, as evidenced by the numerous domain name disputes in
which Peter Carrington and Party Night are Respondent. Respondent’s pattern is to register domain
names that are misspellings of well known trademarks.
Paragraph 15(a)
of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of
the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these
Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of
Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of
the Rules.
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 has
established that it has rights in the AETNA and USHC marks through registration
with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Respondent’s
<aetnauhc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
AETNA and USHC marks. Respondent merely
combines Complainant’s two marks and omits the “s” in the USHC mark. The omission of a single letter within a
mark does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing
similarity. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,
D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by
only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly
similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see
also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini,
FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words
and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not create a distinct mark but
nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s
marks).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent
has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel is permitted to accept all reasonable allegations
and inferences in the Complaint as true.
See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA
95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure to respond allows all reasonable
inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant 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”).
Moreover,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate rights
and legitimate interests in the domain name.
When Complainant asserts a prima facie case against Respondent,
the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or
legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO
Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to
Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights
and legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp.,
D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance that could demonstrate any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
Respondent,
Peter Carrington, is a repeat cybersquatter.
There is no evidence on record that Respondent is known by any name
other than Peter Carrington or Party Night.
Based on this information, the Panel infers that Respondent is not
commonly known as AETNAUHC or <aetnauhc.com>. Thus, Respondent does not have rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS
information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain
name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see
also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001)
(Interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been
commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to
prevail").
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant’s
AETNA mark is famous and well known throughout the world. Respondent is a pattern cybersquatter, known
for registering domain names that incorporate variations of famous marks. Based on these facts, the Panel infers that
Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s marks when it registered the <aetnauhc.com>
domain name. Registration of an
infringing domain name, despite actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is
evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of
bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s
trademarks, actually or constructively”); see also Entrepreneur
Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that
"[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to
another, one can infer an intent to confuse").
Respondent is
using the <aetnauhc.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to
pornographic and advertising websites.
The Panel infers that Respondent is making a profit from the Internet
traffic diverted to these websites.
Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is creating Internet user
confusion for its own commercial gain which is evidence of bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135,
1148 (9th
Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that "[w]hile an intent to confuse consumers
is not required for a finding of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is
strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion"); see also eBay, Inc v. Progressive Life Awareness
Network, D2000-0068 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2001) (finding bad faith where
Respondent is taking advantage of the recognition that eBay has created for its
mark and therefore profiting by diverting users seeking the eBay website to
Respondent’s site).
Moreover,
Respondent is using the <aetnauhc.com> to redirect Internet users
to a website that features adult content.
The use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet traffic
to a pornographic website is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). See MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading,
D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that the association of a confusingly
similar domain name with a pornographic website can constitute bad faith); see
also Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names,
D2000-0370 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that absent contrary evidence, linking
the domain names in question to graphic, adult-oriented websites is evidence of
bad faith); see also CCA Indus.,
Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (finding that “this
association with a pornographic web site can itself constitute bad faith”).
Thus, the Panel
finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <aetnauhc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
May 20, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page