InfoSpace, Inc. v. Sunwave Communications
c/o Donna McCole
Claim Number: FA0309000198015
PARTIES
Complainant
is InfoSpace, Inc. (“Complainant”)
represented by Shannon M. Jost, 800
Fifth Ave., Suite 4000, Seattle, WA, 98104. Respondent is Sunwave Communications c/o
Donna McCole, (“Respondent”)
represented by Donna McCole, 895 “B” Street #509, Hayward, CA, 94541.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <authorizenetsucks.com>,
registered with Onlinenic, Inc.
PANEL
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.
P.
Jay Hines as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on September 24, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on September 26, 2003.
On
September 25, 2003, Onlinenic, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <authorizenetsucks.com>
is registered with Onlinenic, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Onlinenic, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound
by the Onlinenic, 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
October 3, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 23,
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@authorizenetsucks.com by e-mail.
An
untimely Response was received on October 24, 2003, one day after the deadline
for submitting the Response had elapsed. Thus, the Response is not in
compliance with UDRP Rule #5(a).
Nonetheless, the Panelist has reviewed and considered the Response.
On
October 29, 2003, Complainant submitted a timely additional submission in
compliance with Supplemental Rule 7.
On October 30, 2003, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed P. Jay Hines as
Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant
identifies itself as a pre-eminent global provider of wireless and Internet
software and application services to the leading wireless and broadband
providers, websites and merchant resellers around the world. Complainant provides directory services
offering access to information about various subjects via the Internet,
provides search engines for obtaining data on the Internet, and provides for
brokerage of electronic commerce transactions conducted via the Internet.
Complainant
adopted and has used the mark AUTHORIZE.NET since at least as early as November
1996 and owns a claimed family of U.S. trademark and service mark registrations
in connection with computer software for use in the processing and management
of credit card and electronic check transactions conducted via a global computer
network, as follows: Supplemental
Register Registration No. 2,422,317 for the mark AUTHORIZE.NET in Classes 9 and
36; Principal Register Registration No. 2,749,994 for the mark AUTHORIZE.NET in
Class 36; Principal Register Registration No. 2,441,859 for the mark
AUTHORIZE.NET WHERE THE WORLD DOES BUSINESS ON THE WEB & DESIGN in Classes
9 and 36; Principal Register Registration No. 2,746,969 for the mark AIRPAY BY
AUTHORIZE.NET in Classes 9 and 36; and Principal Register Registration No.
2,685,523 for the mark POCKETAUTHORIZE.NET in Classes 9 and 36. Complainant also offers its computer
software and global financial services via its Internet websites at <authorize.net> and <authorizenet.com>. Complainant claims that the AUTHORIZE.NET
mark is well known due to its extensive use, advertising and promotional
efforts involving several million dollars.
Complainant
alleges that the domain name <authorizenetsucks.com>
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AUTHORIZE.NET mark despite the addition of the pejorative term “sucks.” Complainant alleges that the domain name
incorporates its full mark, which is the dominating presence in the domain
name. Thus, it is inherently likely to
lead some people to believe that Complainant is associated with it. Further, not all Internet users are English
speaking or familiar with the use of “sucks” to indicate a complaint site. Complainant alleges that the growing weight
of decisions have found confusing similarity under similar circumstances,
noting that some companies may themselves establish a complaint or comment site
to obtain feedback on their products.
Relying on Vivendi Universal v.
Sallen, D2001-1121 (WIPO
Nov. 7, 2001), Complainant alleges that “the right to express one’s view is not
the same as the right to use another’s name to identify oneself as the source
of those views…”
At
the time of submitting the Complaint, Respondent’s website did not function as
a complaint site. Rather, it was a
password-accessed site serving no purpose other than to disrupt the business of
Complainant by diverting traffic from Complainant’s website. With respect to rights or legitimate
interests, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no relationship with
Complainant and it is not authorized to use the AUTHORIZE.NET mark or any
variations thereof. Respondent has
never been known by or operated business under the names “AUTHORIZE.NET” or
“AUTHORIZENETSUCKS” and has no trademark or service mark rights in the terms. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s intent
is to tarnish Complainant’s mark and not to make a legitimate, non-commercial
or fair use of the domain name.
Respondent registered the domain name on July 22, 2003. Complainant sent a cease and desist letter
on August 26, 2003. Respondent’s
failure to reply to the letters suggests a lack of rights or legitimate
interests.
With
respect to bad faith, Complainant alleges that Respondent clearly had knowledge
of Complainant and its well-known mark and registered the subject domain name
in an effort to tarnish Complainant’s mark.
Complainant relies on Vivendi,
supra and Compagnie de Saint Gobain
v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO March 14, 2000) to support a finding of bad faith under Policy
paragraph 4(b)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent
Donna McCole claims that the subject domain name is her personal property, not
that of Sunwave Communications.
Respondent claims that the domain name was not registered for commercial
gain, but to provide consumers with information to help them better evaluate
the AUTHORIZE.NET service. Respondent
alleges that it has not prevented Complainant from using its mark as a domain
name, that Respondent is not a competitor of Complainant and that it has not
offered to sell the domain name to anyone.
Respondent
disagrees that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as
its meaning is substantially different from the simple designation
AUTHORIZE.NET. Respondent disagrees
that non-English speaking individuals may be confused as “sucks” is a
dictionary term.
Respondent
claims that initially its website was not a password protected site but merely
a default skeleton page put up for newly created websites. Respondent attaches a copy of the current
website’s content, which includes two Complainant stories posted by Respondent
on October 22 and October 23, 2003.
Respondent claims that the site is clearly a forum to express her
personal opinions about Complainant’s service.
The posted stories refer to a friend that had difficulties as an
AUTHORIZE.NET customer, particularly with respect to transaction processing and
the security of the system.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant
alleges that Respondent’s response is not entitled to consideration as it was
untimely submitted. Complainant asserts
that Respondent’s posting of content to the website at the eleventh hour should
be disregarded as an obvious attempt to evade a finding of bad faith. Complainant relies on Vivendi, supra and Koninkglijke
Philips Elecs. N.V. v. In Seo Kim, 2001-1195 (WIPO Nov. 12, 2001). Complainant also sites additional cases for
the proposition that bad faith has been found based on Respondent’s actual
knowledge of Complainant and its mark at the time the subject domain was
registered and further that Respondent’s rights to post criticism does not extend
to use of Complainant’s registered mark in its entirety in a domain name.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (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;
(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 that it has
rights in the mark AUTHORIZE.NET. The
registered domain name merely adds the word “sucks” to Complainant’s mark. Although there is somewhat of a split among
the UDRP decisions addressing complaint sites of this nature, the majority of
cases have found that the addition of the word “sucks” does not defeat a
finding of confusing similarity. The
Panel agrees with the analysis set forth in Cabela’s
Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol, FA 95080 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) and the
recent case of Wachovia Corp. v. Flanders,
D2003-0596 (WIPO Sept. 19, 2003) that each case must be assessed on its own
merits.
In this case, the Panel concludes that
there is potential for confusion or mistake on the part of the Internet user.
Complainant’s mark is sufficiently well-known that someone searching on the
Internet, whether from the United States or abroad, may assume an association
with Complainant. Respondent’s domain
name is sufficiently similar to Complainant’s marks so that search engine
results likely will confusingly list Respondent’s domain name when one searches
for Complainant’s mark. Thus, the Panel
concludes that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
marks.
Respondent did not operate the website at
<authorizenetsucks.com> to any
extent until after Complainant’s cease and desist letter of August 26, 2003,
and the subject UDRP complaint. It is
difficult for the Panel to give much weight to the meager content created and
posted while the UDRP proceeding was pending.
Such efforts, as found in Koninkglijke
Philips, supra and Vivendi, supra,
permit an inference that they are contrived to prevent Complainant from
succeeding, not to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain
name pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii).
Before notice of the dispute and up until the recent postings,
Respondent, by its own admission, states that the website was merely a
placeholder for the domain. As such,
the only inference is one of an intent to tarnish. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant prevails on the
issue of no rights or legitimate interests.
It is obvious that Respondent was aware
of Complainant’s mark at the time it registered the domain name. It appears that Respondent registered the
domain name, encompassing a known mark, primarily for the purpose of tarnishing
the mark at issue. Cubela’s, Inc., supra. Thus, the Panel finds that the domain name has been registered
and used in bad faith.
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <authorizenetsucks.com>
domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
P. Jay Hines, Panelist
Dated: November 10, 2003
I:\atty\PJH\10961-244975US-DEC.DOC
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page