Bayard, Inc. v. Kwesi Arko
Claim Number: FA1809001806386
Complainant is Bayard, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Gregory Golla of Merchant & Gould P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Kwesi Arko (“Respondent”), Ghana.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <catholicdigestt.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 17, 2018; the Forum received payment on September 17, 2018.
On September 18, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <catholicdigestt.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 September 19, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 9, 2018 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@catholicdigestt.com. Also on September 19, 2018, 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 October 12, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant is an international media company that offers one hundred and ninety (190) magazines and online publications, including the “Catholic Digest.”
Complainant has rights in the CATHOLIC DIGEST mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <catholicdigestt.com> domain name is identical/confusingly similar to Complainant’s CATHOLIC DIGEST mark as it adds a second “t” to the mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <catholicdigestt.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s CATHOLIC DIGEST mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to feature third-party advertising links to collect click-through revenue.
Respondent registered and uses the <catholicdigestt.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name to generate click-through revenue via advertisements. Furthermore, Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CATHOLIC DIGEST mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the CATHOLIC DIGEST mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the CATHOLIC DIGEST trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address to a webpage which displays multiple pay-per-click links.
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(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 (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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registered trademark for CATHOLIC DIGEST thereby demonstrating its rights in such mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Respondent’s domain name starts with Complainant’s CATHOLIC DIGEST trademark less its space, adds the letter “t” and concludes with the top level domain name “.com”. The slight differences between Respondent’s <catholicdigestt.com> domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <catholicdigestt.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CATHOLIC DIGEST trademark. See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank’).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Kwesi Arko” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <catholicdigestt.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <catholicdigestt.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), (UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (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’s confusingly similar <catholicdigestt.com> domain name addresses a webpage displaying pay-per-click links to third parties as well as an article describing Respondent’s use of the domain name. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(ii), (UDRP Policy ¶4 (c)(i)), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iv), (UDRP Policy ¶4 (c)(i)). See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent’s <catholicdigestt.com> domain name is used to address a webpage offering hyperlinks referencing third parties. Using the at-issue domain name in this manner trades upon Complainant’s goodwill for commercial gain thereby indicating Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA1408001575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained).
Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CATHOLIC DIGEST mark when it registered the <catholicdigestt.com> domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark. Registering and using a confusingly similar domain with knowledge of Complainant’s rights therein indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <catholicdigestt.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: October 15, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page