DECISION

 

Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. na a/k/a Garret Hodson

Claim Number:  FA0305000158165

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Disney Enterprises, Inc., Burbank, CA (“Complainant”) represented by J. Andrew Coombs, of J. Andrew Coombs, A Professional Corporation. Respondent is na a/k/a Garret Hodson, Orange, CA (“Respondent”).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <disney-auctions.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on May 20, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 21, 2003.

 

On May 23, 2003, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <disney-auctions.com> is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, Inc. 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 May 23, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 12, 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@disney-auctions.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 June 20, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 


1.      Respondent’s <disney-auctions.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <disney-auctions.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <disney-auctions.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Disney Enterprises, Inc., is an entertainment company and owner of many trademarks and copyrighted works associated with live-action and animated movies, television shows and a radio network.  Since 1923, Complainant, or its predecessors in interest, have continuously used and applied the DISNEY mark and DISNEY-formative marks for a variety of goods and services.  Complainant maintains a significant presence on the Internet via subsidiary and otherwise affiliated companies owning and operating various urls and websites including <disney.com> and <disneyauctions.com>. Complainant also maintains a webpage on the eBay, Inc. auction website (“eBay”).

 

Complainant obtained a registration on July 28, 1981 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the DISNEY mark (Reg. No. 1,162,727) related to children’s story book and a newspaper.  Complainant owns many domain names using its DISNEY mark, including <disney.com>, <disneyland.com> and <disneyauctions.com>.  The domain name, <disneyauctions.com> was registered in November 2000 and automatically re-directs users to the “Disney Auctions” webpage and <disney-auctions.net> , which automatically redirects users to the <disney.com> homepage.  Complainant’s <disney.com> was first registered in 1990 to promote the Walt Disney Company and to provide access to certain other Disney products and services.  All uses of Complainant’s trademarks incorporated into domain names are owned by Complainant. 

 

Respondent registered the <disney-auctions.com> domain name on February 18, 2003.  Respondent offered the domain name for sale on the eBay auctions website for $1,800.00 and included Complainant’s “Disney Auctions” logo on its auction webpage.  Respondent described the Domain Name as being a “Premier Domain Name” and exclaimed, “Think of the possibility of being connected with Disney!!!!!!”  Respondent has not made an active use of the domain name and there is no operational website in connection with the domain name.  

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has established rights in the DISNEY mark through registration with the USPTO on July 28, 1981.  In addition, Complainant has continuously used the DISNEY mark since 1923 for a variety of goods and uses.  See The Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Brian Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning”).  As one court stated more than 30 years ago, “the association of the name ‘DISNEY’ with the business enterprises, goods, services and activities of [the Complainant and its affiliated companies] is so widely accepted in the mind of the general public…that said name has become and is distinctive…and has acquired and now has a secondary meaning and distinctiveness throughout the United States…” Walt Disney World Co. v. Disney Area Acreage, Inc., 316 F.Supp. 285, 286-287 (S.D. Fla. 1970); see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, et. Al., D2001-0489 (WIPO June 19, 2001) (DISNEY mark is “highly distinctive and unquestionably famous”). 

 

Complainant owns many domain names using its DISNEY mark, including <disney.com>, <disneyland.com> and <disneyauctions.com>.  The <disneyauctions> domain name was registered in November 2000 and automatically re-directs users to the “Disney Auctions” webpage, and <disney-auctions.net> , which automatically redirects users to the <disney.com> homepage.  Complainant owns all uses of its trademarks incorporated into domain names.  Complainant’s <disney.com> was first registered in 1990 to promote the Walt Disney Company and to provide access to certain other Disney products and services.  See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. MacLeod, D2000-0662 (WIPO Sept. 19, 2000) (finding that the failure of the Complainant to register all possible domain names that surround its substantive mark does not hinder Complainant’s rights in the mark.  “Trademark owners are not required to create ‘libraries’ of domain names in order to protect themselves”); see also Bibbero Sys., Inc. v. Tseu & Assoc., FA 94416 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding common law rights in the mark BIBBERO as the Complainant, Bibbero Systems, Inc (Complainant owns a trademark for its full company name) had developed brand name recognition with the BIBBERO term by which the Complainant is commonly known).    

 

Respondent’s <disney-auctions.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark because it incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds the descriptive term “auction.”  The addition of “auction” does not prevent Complainant’s mark from remaining the dominant feature of the disputed domain name.  Internet users intending to access Complainant’s website, but who reach a website through the disputed domain name, would undoubtedly think that an affiliation of some kind exists between Complainant and Respondent, where no such relationship exists at all.  Thus, the <disney-auctions.com> domain name does not overcome a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis.  See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd.  v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction Inc., D2001-0075 (WIPO Mar. 6, 2001) (finding that the domain name  <christiesauction.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark since it merely adds the word "auction" used in its generic sense).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

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) (Respondent’s 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”). 

 

Respondent’s use of the domain name does not and cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services because Respondent registered and uses the domain name to infringe Complainant’s rights in its mark, to trade off Complainant’s goodwill and to usurp Internet traffic rightly intended for Complainant.  Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the mark.  Respondent must have known when he selected the domain name that the public would incorrectly associate it with Complainant and Complainant’s marks.  Given the distinctiveness and fame of the DISNEY and DISNEY-formative marks, there is no plausible explanation for Respondents’ registration of the domain name other than to trade upon the goodwill Complainant has developed in its marks.  Despite Complainant’s demands, Respondent refuses to acknowledge Complainant’s rights in the domain name and has communicated his intent to “keep [] it for some time.”    Thus, Respondent fails to establish rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).  See Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang, D2000-0055 (WIPO March 21, 2000) (holding that “[i]n the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those trademarks, it is clear that no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could be claimed by Respondent; see also Body Shop Int’l PLC v. CPIC NET & Hussain, D2000-1214 (Nov. 26, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) Respondent failed to use the domain name and (2) it is clear that Respondent registered the domain name as an opportunistic attempt to gain from the goodwill of Complainant).

 

Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Respondent does not use the trade name “Disney Auctions” on a website or for any other purpose.  Even if Respondent has used the trade name, such an unauthorized use does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.  Therefore, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that no person besides Complainant could claim a right or a legitimate interest with respect to the domain name <nike-shoes.com>).

 

Furthermore, Respondent, Garret Hodson, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name as evidenced by both the name given in the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain name and the fame surrounding Complainant’s longstanding use of the DISNEY mark.  Thus, the evidence supports the reasonable inference that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent.  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 Foot Locker Retail, Inc. v. Bruce Gibson, FA 139693 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 4, 2003) (stating that  [d]ue to the fame of Complainant’s FOOT LOCKER family of marks…and the fact that Respondent’s WHOIS information reveals its name to be “Bruce Gibson,” the Panel infers that Respondent was not “commonly known by” any of the disputed domain names prior to their registration, and concludes that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent”).

 

Respondent’s current use of the <disney-auctions.com> domain name, purporting to offer the registration for sale for $1,800.00, does not evidence a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.  Respondent offered the domain name for sale on the eBay auctions website for $1,800.00 and included Complainant’s “Disney Auctions” logo on his auction webpage.  Respondent described the domain name as being a “Premier Domain Name” and exclaimed, “Think of the possibility of being connected with Disney!!!!!!”  Respondent has not made an active use of the domain name and there is no operational website in connection with the domain name.  The disputed domain name automatically re-directs users to a Go Daddy webpage that indicates to users that the domain name is “parked” and is for sale.  Therefore, Respondent fails to establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites that are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for profit); see BMW AG v. Loophole, D2000-1156 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent claimed to be using the domain name for a non-commercial purpose but had made no actual use of the domain name).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <disney-auctions.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent has offered the domain name for sale on the eBay auctions website for $1,800.00 and has informed the Complainant of his intent to “keep [the domain name registration] for some time.”  Thus, circumstances indicate that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling or transferring the domain name registration to Complainant.  Respondent’s failure to develop or articulate a purpose for the domain name reinforces this finding.  Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).  See Wrenchead.com, Inc. v. Hammersla, D2000-1222 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2000) (finding that offering the domain name for sale at an auction site is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also World Wrestling Fed’n Entmt., Inc. v. Bosman, D99-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) (finding that Respondent used the domain name in bad faith because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of any out-of-pocket costs).

 

Furthermore, Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith because the international fame of the DISNEY trademark, combined with widespread marketing of Disney-related goods and services within the United States, where Respondent is located, are more than enough to impute to Respondent’s knowledge of Disney’s prior trademark rights.  See Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Koch, FA 95688 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2000) (“the selection of a domain name [northwest-airlines.com] which entirely incorporates the name of the world’s fourth largest airline could not have been done in good faith”); see also Chanel, Inc. AG v. Designer Exposure, D2000-1832 (WIPO Feb. 15, 2001) (finding that Respondent's registration and use of the famous CHANEL mark suggests opportunistic bad faith).

 

Since the DISNEY mark is so internationally distinctive and famous, Respondent clearly knew or should have known of Complainant’s mark prior to registering the domain name.  By registering the domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark, Respondent acted in bad faith by breaching his registration contract with Go Daddy because he falsely represented that his registration of the domain name did not infringe the rights of any third party.  Thus, the registration constituted bad faith.  See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith); see also Victoria's Secret v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that, in light of the notoriety of Complainants' famous marks, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the BODY BY VICTORIA marks at the time she registered the disputed domain name and such knowledge constituted bad faith).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <disney-auctions.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

                                                                            

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist

Dated: July 1, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page