America Online, Inc. v. Arion Software
Claim Number: FA0308000187395
Complainant is America Online, Inc., Dulles, VA
(“Complainant”) represented by James R.
Davis, of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin
& Kahn, PLLC. Respondent is Arion Software, Laguna Hills, CA
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain name at issue are <aolpms.com>,
<aolbms.com>, <aolpos.com> and <aolcrm.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.
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.
Judge
Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on August 18, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on August 18, 2003.
On
August 18, 2003, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain names <aolpms.com>,
<aolbms.com>, <aolpos.com> and <aolcrm.com> are registered with Wild
West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Wild
West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West
Domains, Inc. 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
August 19, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
September 8, 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@aolpms.com, postmaster@aolbms.com, postmaster@aolpos.com
and postmaster@aolcrm.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
September 18, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina
(Ret.) 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <aolpms.com>, <aolbms.com>,
<aolpos.com> and <aolcrm.com> domain names are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <aolpms.com>,
<aolbms.com>, <aolpos.com> and <aolcrm.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aolpms.com>, <aolbms.com>, <aolpos.com> and <aolcrm.com> domain names in bad
faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
America Online, Inc., is the holder of numerous trademark registrations
worldwide for the AOL mark, including U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Registration Nos. 1,977,731 and 1,984,337, which were registered on June 4,
1996, and July 2, 1996, respectively. Complainant uses its AOL mark in
connection with, inter alia, Internet
and computer-related services. Complainant began using its AOL mark in
connection with computer online services and other Internet-related services at
least as early as 1989, and to date has approximately thirty-five million
subscribers, making it the most widely-used interactive online service in the
world.
Respondent,
Arion Software, registered the <aolpms.com>
domain name on November 6, 2002,
the <aolbms.com> and <aolpos.com> domain names on
February 21, 2003, and the <aolcrm.com>
domain name on April 30, 2003. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use
Complainant’s AOL mark for any purpose. Respondent uses the disputed domain
names to sell computer software programs online or to host a generic “log in”
page, and purportedly operates these websites under the acronym for “Arion On
Line.” After receiving a cease and desist letter from Complainant, Respondent
informed Complainant that it could “put all this to an end” by reimbursing
Respondent for the costs it would incur by renaming its business, and placed
the dollar amount for this transaction at $25,000.
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
draw such inferences it 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 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 has
established rights in the AOL mark though registration of the mark with the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as through widespread and continuous
use of the mark in commerce.
Respondent’s <aolpms.com>, <aolbms.com>, <aolpos.com> and <aolcrm.com> domain names are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark. Each disputed domain name uses
Complainant’s famous AOL mark with the addition of a string of three letters.
Given the fame surrounding the AOL mark, it remains the dominant feature of the
disputed domain names, despite the inclusion of additional letters, and each
domain name is thus confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374
(WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that adding the suffixes "502" and
"520" to the ICQ trademark does little to reduce the potential for
confusion); see also Victoria’s Secret v.
Zuccarini, FA 95762 (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 the domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <aolpms.com>,
<aolbms.com>, <aolpos.com> and <aolcrm.com> domain names are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent uses
the disputed domain names to either sell computer software or to host a generic
“log in” page. In the context of its software sales, Respondent is operating as
“Arion On Line,” which it claimed to Complainant as the rationale for its use
of the AOL mark in its domain names. Complainant alleges that this business
name is a simple pretext utilized by Respondent to attempt to legitimize its
use of the AOL mark. As Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint and rebut
what appears to be an obvious case of cybersquatting on the famous AOL mark,
the Panel infers that Respondent admits that it lacks rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name. See
Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000)
(finding that by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any
circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name); see also BIC Deutschland
GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (“By not
submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which
could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name”).
Respondent’s use
of the disputed domain names to sell computer software capitalizes on the fame
surrounding Complainant’s AOL mark, while its use of the mark to draw Internet
users to a generic log in screen merely dilutes the mark. In either
circumstance, Respondent cannot be considered to be making a bona fide offering
of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
disputed domain names. Thus, Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) cannot be considered
to apply to Respondent. See Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am. v. Stonybrook Invs., LTD, FA 100182 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov.
15, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name where Respondent was using Complainant’s mark to redirect Internet users
to a website offering credit card services unrelated to those services
legitimately offered under Complainant’s mark); see also U.S. Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Howell, FA 152457 (Nat. Arb.
Forum May 6, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark and the
goodwill surrounding that mark as a means of attracting Internet users to an
unrelated business was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
Similarly,
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) is inapplicable to Respondent. In light of Respondent’s
failure to respond and the world-wide fame of Complainant’s registered AOL
mark, the Panel is unwilling to find that Respondent is “commonly known by” the
disputed domain names. 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 Victoria’s Secret v. Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001)
(finding sufficient proof that Respondent was not commonly known by a domain
name confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of
Complainant’s well-established use of the mark).
Further evidence
that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
names is evident from its attempt to sell each of its registrations to
Complainant. See Am. Nat’l Red Cross v.
Domains, FA 143684 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 4, 2003) (stating that
“Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name is
further evidenced by Respondent’s attempt to sell its domain name registration
to Complainant, the rightful holder of the RED CROSS mark”); see also Mothers Against Drunk Driving v.
Shin, FA 154098 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (holding that under the
circumstances, Respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose of its rights in
the disputed domain name suggested
that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
<aolpms.com>, <aolbms.com>, <aolpos.com> and <aolcrm.com> domain names under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
using the fame surrounding the AOL mark to lure Internet users into viewing its
domain names, in an attempt to sell computer software. This use of
Complainant’s mark for commercial gain is evidence that the disputed domain
names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex
Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that
Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to
attract Internet users to its commercial website); 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)).
However, the
Panel feels that the more significant evidence that the domain names were
registered and used in bad faith comes from Respondent’s attempt to sell its
domain name registrations to Complainant. Given the widespread fame of the AOL
mark, Respondent’s explanation to Complainant as to why it chose to use the AOL
mark in its domain names, absent rebuttal by Respondent, is difficult to
believe, at best. Thus, the Panel infers that Respondent’s primary purpose in
registering each of the disputed domain names was the sale of those domain name
registrations to Complainant. This type of activity evidences bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Matmut v. Tweed, D2000-1183 (WIPO Nov. 27, 2000) (finding bad
faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(i) where Respondent stated in communication
with Complainant, “if you are interested in buying this domain name, we would
be ready to sell it for $10,000”); see
also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding that the attempted sale of a domain
name is evidence of bad faith)
The Panel thus
finds that Respondent registered and used the <aolpms.com>, <aolbms.com>,
<aolpos.com> and <aolcrm.com> domain names in bad
faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <aolpms.com>,
<aolbms.com>, <aolpos.com> and <aolcrm.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to
Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
September 24, 2003
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page