National Geographic Society v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services
Claim Number: FA1411001591516
Complainant is National Geographic Society (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services (“Respondent”), Chile.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <nationalgeographickids.org>, registered with Internet.bs Corp. (R1601-LROR).
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 November 21, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 26, 2014.
On December 5, 2014, Internet.bs Corp. (R1601-LROR) confirmed by email to the National Arbitration Forum that the <nationalgeographickids.org> domain name is registered with Internet.bs Corp. (R1601-LROR) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet.bs Corp. (R1601-LROR) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet.bs Corp. (R1601-LROR) 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 9, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 29, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@nationalgeographickids.org. Also on December 9, 2014, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 December 31, 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 large nonprofit scientific and educational institution. Complainant has published National Geographic magazine continuously since 1888; the magazine has a global circulation of 6.8 million per month. Complainant also publishes a magazine under the name National Geographic Kids. Complainant uses NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and related marks in connection with these publications and other products and services. Complainant asserts that its NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC mark has become famous and widely recognized around the world as a result of this use. The mark is registered in the United States, the European Community, and elsewhere around the world.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <nationalgeographickids.org> is confusingly similar to its NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC mark. Complainant contends further that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support thereof, Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click site displaying links that divert visitors to websites not associated with Complainant, and in some instances sites associated with Complainant’s competitors. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name or Complainant’s mark, and that Respondent has no trademark rights therein. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the domain name to confuse and misdirect consumers, and that Respondent is tarnishing and diluting Complainant’s mark. Complainant alleges that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights when the domain name was registered or acquired; that Respondent presumably receives compensation for redirecting Internet users to third-party sites; and that the domain name was registered under the name of a privacy service, further evincing Respondent’s bad faith. Complainant accuses Respondent of being a well-known cybersquatter, noting that at least 80 prior UDRP cases have been successfully brought against Respondent, illustrating a pattern of 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 names incorporates Complainant’s registered mark in its entirety, omitting the space and appending the generic term “kids” and the “.com” top-level domain name. These alterations do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Weather Channel, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., D2009-0548 (WIPO June 23, 2009) (finding <weatherchannelkids.com> confusingly similar to THE WEATHER CHANNEL). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is 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).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark and corresponds to the name of a magazine published by Complainant, and apparently its sole use has been in connection with websites containing advertising links, including links to competitors of Complainant. See, e.g., Finish Line, Inc. v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1577970 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 9, 2014) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in similar circumstances). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
For the same reasons as those present in numerous other cases involving Respondent, including Finish Line, Inc. v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, supra; Mediacom Communications Corp. v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1560467 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 8, 2014); and many others, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nationalgeographickids.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: January 2, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page