Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Lisa Katz / Domain Protection LLC
Claim Number: FA1512001652783
Complainant is Wiluna Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Dionne Heard of Volpe and Koenig, P.C., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Lisa Katz / Domain Protection LLC (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <clips4free.com>, registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 16, 2015; the Forum received payment on December 16, 2015.
On December 20, 2015, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <clips4free.com> domain name is registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Fabulous.com Pty Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.com Pty Ltd 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 23, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 12, 2016 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@clips4free.com. Also on December 23, 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 January 19, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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 the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. WILUNA’S TRADEMARK, BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND WEB SITE
Complainant, WILUNA HOLDINGS, LLC (referred to herein as “Wiluna” or “Complainant”), is the owner and operator of the website operating at the URL www.clips4sale.com (referred to herein as the “CLIPS4SALE Website”). Wiluna is the owner of several U.S. trademark registrations. The CLIPS4SALE Website features adult-entertainment oriented media, offered under the trademarks CLIPS4SALE.COM (U.S. Registration No. 3,508,680), CLIPS4SALE (U.S. Registration No. 3,554,200), CLIPS4 (U.S. Registration No. 4,800,900), and CLIP4 (U.S. Registration No. 4,814,248) (referred to collectively as “Wiluna’s Marks”). Since at least as early as July 2003, Wiluna has used the trademarks CLIPS4SALE and CLIPS4SALE.COM in connection with the CLIPS4SALE Website, and the associated media. The CLIPS4SALE.COM domain name was registered with Network Solutions, Inc. (“NSI”) at least as early as 2003 and has been in continuous use since that time. Wiluna’s Marks are unique and distinctive to Wiluna.
Clearly, through extensive and exclusive use of the Wiluna’s Marks, Wiluna has established a strong secondary meaning in Wiluna’s Marks for Wiluna’s services. Consumers and the trade have come to recognize Wiluna as the source of adult-entertainment media offered via its CLIPS4SALE.COM Website. In addition, Wiluna has created a family of “CLIPS4” and “4SALE” marks and domain names directed to Wiluna’s relevant industry and consumers.
The CLIPS4SALE.COM domain name has accumulated a great deal of goodwill via its popular CLIPS4SALE.COM website. The CLIPS4SALE.COM domain name is used to identify Wiluna as a source of its goods and services. Thus, the domain name CLIPS4SALE.COM has achieved the status of a common law trademark and is a protectable right under the Policy in addition to and as a part of Wiluna’s Marks.
B. RESPONDENT’S UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
The domain name in issue is registered in the name of Respondent, “Domain Hostmaster” and is referred to herein as “Infringing Domain Name.”
It is apparent that Respondent has targeted Wiluna’s Marks. The domain name registered by Respondent is identical to or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Respondent’s domain name simply replaces the term SALE in CLIPS4SALE with the term FREE to create CLIPS4FREE. Both domain names share the term “CLIPS” and the number “4” in their domain name. As such, they are virtually identical.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to the ICANN Rules, Wiluna must establish the following to obtain the relief it requests in this action: (1) that the Infringing Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Wiluna has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Infringing Domain Name; and (3) that Respondent has registered and used the Infringing Domain Name in bad faith. For the reasons set forth below, Wiluna submits that its Complaint satisfies each of these requirements.
A. THE INFRINGING DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO WILUNA’S MARKS
Respondent’s Infringing Domain Name wholly incorporates a variation of Wiluna’s Marks, and the CLIPS4SALE.COM domain name, and is therefore nearly identical to and confusingly similar to Wiluna’s Marks. Further, by replacing the term “SALE” in CLIPS with the term “FREE” Internet users may think that they are potentially getting the same products that Claimant offers for free driving traffic away from Claimant’s website, which in turn could lead to profit loss for the Claimant. Moreover, Internet users searching for Claimant’s website and/or who otherwise may make a typographical error will be deceptively led to Respondent’s website. This may lead Internet users to believe that the Infringing Domain Name and the site operated under or otherwise related to the domain name, is associated or affiliated with, or sponsored or endorsed by Wiluna, when in fact it is not.
As mentioned above, there can be no argument that Respondent has merely taken Wiluna’s Marks and Domain Name, and has merely deleted the term “SALE” and replaced it with the term “FREE.”
As previous UDRP Panels have recognized, the addition of a term to an established trademark or domain name or a minor modification or misspelling creates a confusingly similar domain name. See U-Haul International, Inc. v. ALCorp. N.A., Claim Number: FA0209000124739 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 4, 2002) (the fact that a domain name incorporates a Complainant’s mark “…is sufficient to establish identical or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”) Here, Claimant’s Domain Name is arguably “highly distinctive” as evidenced from its trademark registrations and notoriety in the adult entertainment industry. Further, the addition of a term to an established trademark or domain name or a minor modification or misspelling creates a confusingly similar domain name. See U-Haul International, Inc. v. ALCorp. N.A., Claim Number: FA0209000124739 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 4, 2002) (the fact that a domain name incorporates a Complainant’s mark “…is sufficient to establish identical or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”) (and cases cited therein).
In addition, the mere replacement of the term “SALE” with the term “FREE in the CLIPS4SALE trademark (e.g., the infringing CLIPS4FREE.COM domain name) is not considered as creating a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity. See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, Claim Number: FA0010000095762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders it confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, FA FA00040000994454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2000) (finding the domain name <hewlitpackard.com> to be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s HEWLETT-PACKARD mark).
B. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN THE INFRINGING DOMAIN NAME
Complainant respectfully submits that Respondent has “no rights or legitimate interests” in the Domain name because Complainant has not granted any permission to the Respondent to use the Domain name. Further, Respondent cannot meet any of the situations enumerated in Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy:
a) Respondent’s use of the Domain Name has “no connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.” This is evidenced by Respondent’s website which does not offer any goods or services but merely displays advertising links to other websites. The inference is one of diversion of Internet traffic, not legitimate use. See Integrated Management Solutions, Inc. v. AMMG, Inc.; North Coast Med, Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000); Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech, Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001); TheToronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, D2000- 1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding no rights and legitimate interests where the Respondent diverted Complainant’s customers to his websites); Klosmea Pty. Ltd. v. Krpan, D2000-0948 (WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (“...the current use of the Domain Name is a thinly veiled attempt to attract, for commercial gain, persons aware of the Complainant’s products to the Respondent’s site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Mark...).
b) Respondent has not been “commonly known” by the Domain Name. In Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) and IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006), the panels concluded a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information did not provide any evidence of such a fact, if the complainant did not license the respondent to use complainant’s mark, and if the respondent failed to present any affirmative evidence. In the present case, the WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Domain Hostmaster,” which is not similar or related to the Infringing Domain Name, CLIPS4FREE.COM, and certainly not evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the same. Further, as mentioned above, Complainant has not granted any permission to the Respondent to use the Domain name.
Respondent is not making a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” Respondent’s website exists solely to attract Internet traffic to its website and/or to otherwise divert Internet users to third-party websites in order to generate revenue through click-through advertising revenue. In Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. The Renaissance, the court concluded, “[A]ppropriating a Complainant’s mark to profit from it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, and is not a legitimate use.” Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. The Renaissance Cochin, Claim Number: FA0703000932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 23, 2007). The Respondent is thus attempting to unjustly profit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s marks. Such actions are also clear evidence of bad faith registration and use (see analysis, infra).
See also, Underground Services, Inc. v CSS Group, LLC, Claim Number: FA96843 (Nat. Arb. Forum, April 27, 2001) (“Legitimate rights and interests do not accrue to the Respondent by way of trademark infringement.). Allowing Respondent to retain the Infringing Domain Name would do nothing more than reward infringement.
Moreover, Respondent cannot rely on the fact that it was able to register the Infringing Domain Name as somehow legitimizing its infringement. As stated in TRW Inc. v. Autoscan Inc., D2000-0156 (WIPO, April 24, 2000), “If mere registration of the domain name was sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, then all registrants would have such rights or interests, and no complainant could succeed on a claim of abusive registration.”
Respondent’s registration of its infringing variation of Wiluna’s Marks, and the CLIPS4SALE.COM domain name, has no legitimate, non-infringing purpose.
C. RESPONDENT REGISTERED AND IS USING THE INFRINGING DOMAIN NAME IN BAD FAITH
The ICANN Policy includes four circumstances, without limitation, that are to be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Based upon the facts set forth in this Complaint, the third and fourth circumstances are most applicable. Pursuant to ICANN Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv), evidence of bad faith includes registering a “domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor” and an intentional attempt by Respondent to “attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site . . . by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s web site or location.” Respondent has clearly intended to capitalize upon the goodwill associated with Wiluna’s Marks, and this conduct falls squarely within the conduct described in ICANN Policy ¶¶4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Respondent merely registered a highly similar variation of Wiluna’s coined CLIPS4SALE, CLIPS4SALE.COM, CLIPS4 and CLIP4 Marks.
Respondent’s deliberate and intentional copying of Wiluna’s Marks also demonstrates the strong secondary meaning in those Marks. See, e.g., DreamWorks L.L.C. v. Grantics, Case No. D2000-1269 (WIPO December 16, 2000), citing Vision Sports, Inc. v. Melville Corp., 888 F.2d 609, 615 (9th Cir. 1989) ('proof of copying strongly supports an inference of secondary meaning;' secondary meaning found based on plaintiff's extensive use and defendant's 'deliberate and close imitation' of mark); Schwinn Bicycle Co. v. Ross Bicycles, Inc., 870 F.2d 1176, 1182 n.13 (7th Cir. 1989) (proof of intentional copying is probative evidence of "secondary meaning"' and secondary meaning found where defendant intentionally copied plaintiff's trade dress); see also Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1016 (9th Cir. 1986)("Proof of exact copying, without any opposing proof, can be sufficient to establish secondary meaning"); RJR Foods, Inc. v. White Rocks Corp., 603 F.2d 1058 (2d Cir. 1979)(defendant's intentional copying constitutes evidence of secondary meaning).
Respondent’s Infringing Domain Name exists solely to attract Internet traffic and/or to otherwise divert Internet users to third-party websites in an effort to generate revenue via click-through advertising revenue. Accordingly, Respondent’s Infringing Domain Name serves as nothing more than a portal for Respondent’s infringement. Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names is also evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) Respondent registered the disputed domain name containing a misspelling of Complainant’s mark with an eye toward commercially gaining from its use of the domain name. In AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, the Court found bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites . . . and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes.” AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000).
In light of the foregoing, Wiluna respectfully submits that Respondent has both registered and used the Infringing Domain Name in bad faith and that the Infringing Domain Name should be transferred to Wiluna according to the Rules.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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.
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 Complainant prove the following three elements to obtain an order canceling or transferring a domain name:
(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(f), 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 uses the CLIPS4SALE mark in connection with its business as owner of the domain <clips4sale.com> which hosts adult-entertainment oriented media. Complainant has rights in the CLIPS4SALE mark based on its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,508,680, registered December 30, 2008). A complainant’s registration of mark with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) is sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark. See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (concluding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO). It should be noted Complainant’s trademarks registrations show a date of first use dating from July 1, 2002 (which predate the registration of the disputed domain name). Complainant has established rights to the CLIPS4SALE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant claims common law rights in the CLIPS4SALE mark dating back to the first use of the mark in commerce in July 22, 2003 (the creation date of Complainant’s domain name). Complainant has continuously used the CLIPS4SALE mark in connection with its website <clips4sale.com>. Complainant has established common law rights by showing the CLIPS4SALE mark has taken on a secondary meaning in association with Complainant’s business (especially since the registered trademarks’ first use predate the creation date of Complainant’s domain name). See AOL LLC v. DiMarco, FA 1275978 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 9, 2009) (“‘Secondary meaning’ is acquired when ‘in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature . . . is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.’”). While a secondary meaning is normally established by evidence of complainant’s sales figures, expenditures, and any other evidence indicating the mark is publicly associated with complainant, the Panel finds this evidence sufficient. See Gourmet Depot v. DI S.A., FA 1378760 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 21, 2011) (“Relevant evidence of secondary meaning includes length and amount of sales under the mark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition.”). Complainant has established a secondary meaning in the CLIPS4SALE mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant claims Respondent’s disputed <clips4free.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CLIPS4SALE mark. Respondent’s domain name removes the term “sale” from Complainant’s mark and adds the generic term “free,” as well as adding the gTLD “.com.” The addition (or removal) of a generic term is not a sufficient distinguishing difference when determining whether or not a domain is confusingly similar to a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Admin, FA 473826 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2005) (finding the <americaneaglestores.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS mark). The presence of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant to an analysis of confusing similarity Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because every domain name must contact a TLD (whether a gTLD or a ccTLD). See Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra, Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name <robohelp.com> is identical to the complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference"). The <clips4free.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CLIPS4SALE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant claims Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information presently associated with the disputed domain name indicates Respondent is known as “Lisa Katz,” which bears no obvious relationship to the domain name. In this case, there is insufficient evidence in the record Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name in light of the WHOIS information and the lack of any countervailing information from Respondent. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent is not commonly known by the <clips4free.com> domain under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant claims Respondent’s use of the disputed domain is not (i) a bona fide offering of goods or services or (ii) a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the disputed domain to host a generic landing page with links with titles such as, “A Free Dating Site,” “Diaper Lover,” and “Download Free Video Clips.” It is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use to host a parking page with dynamic commercial links. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Nadim, FA 127720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark to redirect Internet users to a domain name featuring magazine subscriptions was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name). Respondent’s use does not fall within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent registered the domain name using a privacy service (the privacy protection was dropped when this Proceeding was brought). This means Respondent has done nothing to publicly link its name with the disputed domain name. This means Respondent has not acquired any rights simply by registering the domain name.
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent’s use of the disputed <clips4free.com> domain is competing and disrupting Complainant’s business. Respondent uses the domain to host a dynamic landing page hosting various commercial links and advertisements. Some links on the disputed domain compete with Complainant’s business as a seller of adult-oriented host of video clips. A respondent acts in bad faith where a respondent directs users to a website hosting competing commercial links because it disrupts complainant’s business. See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (“Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parking website which provides click through revenue to Respondent and which displays links to travel-related products and services that directly compete with Complainant’s business. Accordingly, Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Respondent has acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant claims Respondent has acted in bad faith through confusing and attracting internet users to Respondent’s domain for commercial profit. The dynamic parking page at Respondent’s domain name contains “pay per click” links for competitors’ web sites. Respondent is using the confusing similarity between the <clips4free.com> and the CLIPS4SALE mark to attract internet users for commercial profit, which means Respondent has acted in bad faith Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a privacy service. This raises the rebuttable presumption of bad faith in a commercial context. Respondent has done nothing to rebut that presumption. This Panel is comfortable finding bad faith use and registration on those grounds alone.
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <clips4free.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Friday, January 22, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page