National Geographic Society v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services
Claim Number: FA1503001609301
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 <natgeo.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 Forum electronically on March 12, 2015; the Forum received payment on March 17, 2015.
On March 18, 2015, Internet.bs Corp. (R1601-LROR) confirmed by email to the Forum that the <natgeo.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 March 18, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 7, 2015 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@natgeo.org. Also on March 18, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 16, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a large nonprofit scientific and educational institution and owner of the NAT GEO mark. Complainant publishes National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, and Nat Geo Kids magazines, and produces television programs under the NAT GEO mark, among other activities. Complainant commenced use of the NAT GEO mark in 2002, and asserts that the mark has become famous and internationally recognized. Complainant owns many trademark registrations for NAT GEO and related marks, including registrations in the United States, the European Community, and elsewhere.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <natgeo.org> is identical or confusingly similar to its mark. Complainant notes that the domain name was initially registered in 2003, but believes that it was first acquired by Respondent at some later date, probably April 5, 2013, based upon historical whois records. Complainant contends further that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support thereof, Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and that Complainant has not consented to Respondent’s use of its mark. Complainant states that Respondent is using the domain name for a pay-per-click website that diverts visitors to other websites not associated with Complainant and, in some instances, to websites associated with Complainant’s competitors; Complainant states that this use has tarnished and diluted its mark. Complainant also notes that the domain name was registered in the name of a privacy service in order to conceal Respondent’s identity, and characterizes Respondent as a “well-known cybersquatter,” citing examples of over 140 prior UDRP cases that have been successfully brought against Respondent.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical 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 “.com” top-level domain. These alterations are irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Boston Medical Center Corp. v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1586917 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2014) (finding <bostonmedicalcenter.org> identical to BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical 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 corresponds to Complainant’s well-known mark, and apparently its sole use has been in connection with a website containing advertising links, including links to competitors of Complainant. See, e.g., National Geographic Society v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1591516 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2015) (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 National Geographic Society v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, supra, 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 <natgeo.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 16, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page