Reed Elsevier Inc. and Reed Elsevier
Properties Inc. v. Henry Chan
Claim
Number: FA0306000161468
Complainant is Reed Elsevier Inc. and Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., Newton, MA, (“Complainant”)
represented by J. Paul Williamson of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP.
Respondent is Henry Chan,
Nassau, Bahamas (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <lexixnexis.com>, registered with Iholdings.Com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com.
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically June 3, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint June
4, 2003.
On
June 5, 2003, Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com confirmed by e-mail to
the Forum that the domain name <lexixnexis.com> is registered with
Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com verified
that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com 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
June 11, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
July 1, 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@ lexixnexis.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
July 9, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson 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. The domain name registered by Respondent,
<lexixnexis.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
LEXISNEXIS marks.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the <lexixnexis.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <lexixnexis.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
offers a wide range of computer software, computer assisted research services
and other computer-related services under the marks LEXIS, NEXIS, and
LEXISNEXIS (collectively the “LEXISNEXIS marks”). Some 3.2 million people obtain access to Complainant’s services
on-line through the <lexis.com>, <lexis.org>, <lexisone.com>
and <lexisnexis.com> domain names.
Complainant
holds numerous registrations for the LEXISNEXIS marks on the Principle Register
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Specifically, Complainant has established that it holds Reg. No.
1,020,214 for the LEXIS mark, registered on November 12, 2002, and Reg. No.
2,670,069 for the LEXISNEXIS mark registered on December 31, 2002.
Complainant also
has offered computer-assisted research and other computer-related services
under the LEXIS mark since 1972; and Complainant has offered computer assisted
and on-line research services under the LEXISNEXIS mark since at least as early
as 1983. Complainant has offered legal
related and public database searching services under the LEXIS and LEXISNEXIS
marks since 1985.
Respondent
registered the <lexixnexis.com> domain name November 27,
2002. As of at least March 12, 2003,
when Internet users typed in the disputed domain name, it directed them to a
search portal at the <landing.domainsponsor.com> domain name where users
were subjected to a series of random pop-up advertisements. The website located at the
<landing.domainsponsor.com> domain name states that it pays 50% of all
revenues generated from searches, pop-unders, pop-ups and exit pop-ups.
Respondent’s
domain name currently redirects users to a search engine located at the
<dp.information.com/?a_id+35&domainname=lexixnexis.com> domain name,
which lists a number of specific “popular links” to related websites and
subjects users to a number of pop-up advertisements. The “popular searches” lists “law” as the number one search
topic.
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
will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 to 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
established in this proceeding that it has rights in the LEXISNEXIS marks
through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and by
continuous use in commerce. 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”); see also
J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960, 144 U.S.P.Q. 435
(C.C.P.A. 1965) (registration on the Principal Register is prima facie proof of
continual use of the mark, dating back to the filing date of the application
for registration); see also BroadcastAmerica.com,
Inc. v. Quo, DTV2000-0001 (WIPO Oct. 4, 2000) (finding that Complainant has
common law rights in BROADCASTAMERICA.COM, given extensive use of that mark to
identify Complainant as the source of broadcast services over the Internet, and
evidence that Complainant has wide recognition among Internet users with the
BROADCASTAMERICA.COM mark as the source of broadcast services).
The domain name
registered by Respondent, <lexixnexis.com>, is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s LEXISNEXIS marks. The
disputed domain name is a common misspelling of Complainant’s mark. Respondent merely replaces the first “s” in
Complainant’s LEXISNEXIS mark with an “x”.
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not sufficiently
distinguishable from Complainant’s LEXISNEXIS marks. See Bama Rags, Inc.
v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding that the
domain names, <davemathewsband.com> and <davemattewsband.com>, are
common misspellings and therefore confusingly similar); see also Victoria's Secret v. Internet Inv. Firm
Trust, FA 94344 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000)
(finding the domain name <victoriasecret.com> confusingly similar with
Complainant’s trademark, VICTORIA’S SECRET).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant
established in this proceeding that it has rights to and legitimate interests
in the mark at issue. Respondent did
not submit a Response. In such cases,
the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences presented by
Complainant as true. Since Respondent
has not submitted a Response, the Respondent presented no evidence indicating
that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA
118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has
asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to
the domain name, it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete
evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within
the knowledge and control of the respondent”); Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO
Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as
an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).
Respondent is
not commonly known by the <lexixnexis.com> domain name and nothing
in the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain name suggests that
Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In addition, LEXIS, NEXIS, and LEXISNEXIS
are arbitrary terms that have no meaning outside their use as a means to
identify Complainant as the source of certain products and services. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to
use Complainant’s marks for any purpose and the Panel finds that Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Nike, Inc. v. B.
B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate
interests where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who may show a
right or legitimate interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's
distinct and famous NIKE trademark); see also Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding
that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark contained in the domain name
where Complainant has not permitted Respondent to use the NOKIA mark and no
other facts or elements can justify prior rights or a legitimate connection to
the names “Nokia” and/or “wwwNokia”).
In addition,
Respondent has not used the <lexixnexis.com> domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i) or with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent is using the disputed domain name
to attract and redirect Internet users who misspell Complainant’s well-known
mark to search engine websites where they are subjected to numerous, random
pop-up advertisements. Thus, the Panel
finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. See Geoffrey, Inc. v.
Toyrus.com, FA 150406 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 5, 2003) (holding that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, a simple misspelling of
Complainant’s mark, to divert Internet users to a website that featured pop-up
advertisements and an Internet directory, was neither a bona fide offering of
goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain
name); see also Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA
154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of
infringing domain names to direct Internet traffic to a search engine website
that hosted pop-up advertisements was evidence that it lacked rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name); see also Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallow, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb.18,
2000) (finding (i) the fact that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise
permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks and (ii) the fact that
the word TELSTRA appears to be an invented word, and as such is not one traders
would legitimately choose unless seeking to create an impression of an
association with the Complainant, demonstrate that Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant
urges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent uses Complainant’s marks to attract Internet users who
misspell Complainant’s LEXISNEXIS marks and then Respondent redirects them to a
search engine that offers services that are similar to those offered at
Complainant’s websites. Respondent’s
site also subjects users to pop-up advertisements that are completely unrelated
to Complainant. When Respondent
redirects consumers from Complainant’s LEXISNEXIS websites to Respondent’s
revenue generating search portal sites, Respondent creates a likelihood of
confusion as to the source or sponsorship of Respondent’s websites. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s
registration and use of the disputed domain name is a violation of Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab.,
D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent's use of
the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are
offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that
Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the
site); see also Kmart v. Kahn, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002)
(finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's
mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails
to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the
domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that the requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <lexixnexis.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: July 23, 2003.
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page