Little League Baseball, Inc. v. Thomas Mayk
Claim Number: FA1502001603806
Complainant is Little League Baseball, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Courtney P. Adams of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Thomas Mayk (“Respondent”), Pennsylvania, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <littleleaguechannel.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 6, 2015; the Forum received payment on February 10, 2015.
On Feb 09, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <littleleaguechannel.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 February 12, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 4, 2015 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@littleleaguechannel.com. Also on February 12, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 11, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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" 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 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 states that it has been granted the exclusive right to use the appellation LITTLE LEAGUE and LITTLE LEAGUER by Congress in 36 U.S.C. Sec. 130506. In addition, Complainant has federally registered trademarks for LITTLE LEAGUE, LITTLE LEAGUER and LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL. See Complaint at P.3. Complainant alleges that it has used these various marks since 1939 on or in connection with baseball services.
The Complainant argues that Respondent’s registered domain name <littleleaguechannel.com> is confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademarks and statutory grants. It also claims that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Finally, Complainant argues that the Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 19, 2014.
As the Respondent has failed to file a response in the present matter, the Complainant’s reasonable contentions will be deemed as true. As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of the Complainant and are inconsistent with Complainant’s exclusive statutory grant. In addition, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names and engaged in bad faith use and registration of the same.
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.”).
Complainant has sufficient commercial interest in its registered and famous trademarks to assert this Complaint even without the statutory grant. Taken together, the multiple registrations, the continuous use of the trademarks since 1939 and the statutory grant renders Complainant’s commercial interest in the trademark conclusive.
The Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks and statutory grant. The disputed domain name merely consists of one of Complainant’s trademarks with the addition of the word “channel” and a gTLD .com. There are now numerous panels that have determined that the addition of a generic word and a gTLD to a party’s trademark is no way to distinguish the domain name from the trademark. See, e.g., Yahoo! Inc. v. Hangzhou Hi2000 Info Tech Co. Ltd. a/k/a/ Hangzhou Shixin Info Tech Co. Ltd., Nat. Arb. Forum FA0301000141825 (Feb. 26, 2003)(“[I]t is also well-established under the Policy that a domain name composed of a trademark coupled with a generic term still is confusingly similar to the trademark.”)
The Panel agrees with Complainant that use of the disputed domain name will likely mislead Internet users into thinking the Respondent is somehow related to the Complainant and the use of various tricks like using the word “channel” or the gTLD .com does not prevent the confusion the Respondent clearly seeks.
This Panel agrees with Complainant that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names nor the trademark LITTLE LEAGE that it incorporates into the disputed domain name. Complainant’s Complaint variously alleges that it claims first use in 1939 (Complain at 3), claims continuous use since 1947 (Complaint at 5), alleges it is in the possession of registrations for the trademark LITTLE LEAGUE “over thirty-nine” (Complaint at 5) years prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names on August 19, 2014, and, finally claims using the trademark LITTLE LEAGUE for “over sixty years” (Complaint at 7). Whether or not there is a logical or factual inconsistency in these various claims, one thing is very clear: Complainant’s use and/or registration of the trademark far preceded Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
Further, in 36 U.S.C. Sec. 130506, Congress granted Complainant the exclusive right to use and authorize the use of the appellations “Little League” and “Little Leaguer.” Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register the disputed domain name. Respondent’s uses of the disputed domain name interferes with Complainant’s commercial interests.
Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name or any of its various versions. When the Respondent’s name is nothing even close to that of the underlying trademark at issue, it will be presumed that the Respondent acted in a way to create confusion between the disputed domain name and the underlying trademark. See, e.g., Diners Club Int’l Ltd. V. Sinclare Vabalon, GHG, Nat. Arb. Forum FA0805000183206 (June 5, 2008).
Respondent further has not responded nor provided any evidence of rights or legitimate interest in or to the disputed domain name or the underlying trademark as it even failed to respond to a cease and desist letter from Complainant of October 6, 2014.
Therefore, it is clear that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
In this matter, evidence of bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name abounds.
At the Respondent’s disputed domain name <littleleaguechannel.com>, there was a false link to “littleleague.org.” If an Internet user clicked on “littleleague.org”, rather than reaching Little League Baseball, users were directed to a web site operated by Respondent that provided unrelated commercial services.
Bad faith use and registration will additionally be inferred when, as here, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to misdirect Internet traffic from the trademark holder to itself and the Respondent will likely profit from this diversion. See DatingDirect.com Ltd. V. Aston, Nat. Arb. Forum FA593977 (Dec. 28, 2005).
Given Complainant’s long-held trademark registrations, Respondent had constructive notice of its trademarks; however, even if there were evidence that the Respondent should not be bound by this constructive notice herein and there is not, Complainant alleges that Respondent had actual notice of its claims as it placed the language “Little League Cannel is not affiliated or endorsed by the Little League Baseball organization” on its web page. The Panel agrees that this is conclusive evidence that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant rights in or to LITTLE LEAGUE or any of the other underlying trademarks and proceeded to register the disputed domain name regardless. This is also conclusive evidence of Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <littleleaguechannel.com> domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: March 15, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page