Elsevier B.V. v. Domain Deluxe
Claim
Number: FA0402000237520
Complainant is Elsevier B.V. (“Complainant”), represented
by J. Paul Williamson of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP,
801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004. Respondent is Domain
Deluxe (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 7628, Central Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <sciencdirect.com>, registered with The
Registry At Info Avenue d/b/a IA Registry (hereinafter “IA
Registry”).
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.
James
A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on February 18, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 18, 2004.
On
February 19, 2004, IA Registry confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <sciencdirect.com> is registered with IA Registry and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. IA Registry has verified that
Respondent is bound by the IA Registry 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
February 20, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting
a deadline of March 11, 2004 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@sciencdirect.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
March 19, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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. Respondent’s <sciencdirect.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCIENCEDIRECT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <sciencdirect.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <sciencdirect.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Elsevier B.V., is a global multi-media publisher of scientific, technical and
health information products and services. Through its operating division
ScienceDirect, Complaint has provided online scientific journals and databases
under the SCIENCEDIRECT mark since as early as 1997. Complainant has obtained
numerous registrations for the SCIENCEDIRECT mark worldwide, including in the
United States (U.S. Reg. No. 2,226,808, registered on February 23, 1999), Japan
(e.g. Japanese Reg. No. 4,355,605, registered on January 28, 2000) and
in Singapore (e.g. Singapore Reg. No. T96/12137B, registered on January
15, 1999). Complainant also operates a website under the SCIENCEDIRECT mark at
the <sciencedirect.com> domain name, which received 1.6 million daily
page requests on average in 2003 alone.
Respondent,
Domain Deluxe, registered the <sciencdirect.com> domain name on
April 25, 2003. Initially, Respondent used the disputed domain name to host a
general directory portal webpage which also offered the domain name
registration for sale. Respondent currently uses the disputed domain name to
host a slightly different directory portal page which contains a series of
hyperlinks for searchable categories. The website also generates at least one
pop-up advertisement per Internet user, and generates a portal page through the
<searchco.com> domain name when an Internet user attempts to close their
browser.
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 SCIENCEDIRECT mark through registration of the mark
worldwide, as well as through use of the mark in commerce. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher,
D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that
registration of a mark is prima facie evidence
of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently
distinctive. Respondent has the burden
of refuting this assumption); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7,
2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in
the country in which Respondent operates. It is sufficient that Complainant can
demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Respondent’s <sciencdirect.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s SCIENCEDIRECT mark. The only difference between the domain name
and Complainant’s mark is the omission of the letter “e” from the end of the
word SCIENCE in Complainant’s mark. Even with this minor omission, the disputed
domain name remains confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark in sight, sound
and pronounciation. See Compaq Info. Techs. Group, L.P. v.
Seocho , FA 103879 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (finding that the domain name <compq.com> is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMPAQ mark because the omission of the
letter “a” in the domain name does not significantly change the overall
impression of the mark); see
also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000) (finding
that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s STATE FARM mark).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <sciencdirect.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCIENCEDIRECT mark
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent uses
the disputed domain name to host a portal website that’s principal purpose is
to generate revenue via the use of advertisements. As Respondent’s method of
attracting Internet users to its website is through the unauthorized use of a
slightly altered form of Complainant’s SCIENCEDIRECT mark, such an enterprise
qualifies as neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Thus, neither Policy ¶
4(c)(i) or (iii) bestow rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name upon Respondent. See Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc. v. Chan, FA 154119
(Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2003) (finding that Respondent did not have rights or
legitimate interests in a domain name that used Complainant’s mark and
redirected Internet users to website that pays domain name registrants for
referring those users to its search engine and pop-up advertisements); see
also Geoffrey, Inc. v. Toyrus.com, FA 150406 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25,
2003) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a
domain name that it used to redirect Internet users to an Internet directory
website that featured numerous pop-up advertisements for commercial goods other
websites).
The evidence before the Panel, namely Respondent’s WHOIS contact
information and the content at the website associated with the disputed domain
name, does not support the inference that Respondent is “commonly known by” the
name SCIENCDIRECT, and thus the Panel is compelled to find that Policy¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent. See Tercent
Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in
Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’
the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
does not apply); see also RMO,
Inc. v. Burbridge, FA
96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to
require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to
registration of the domain name to prevail").
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
<sciencdirect.com> domain
name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s
domain name differs by only one letter from Complainant’s SCIENCEDIRECT mark
and <sciencedirect.com> domain name. Thus, Internet users attempting to
reach Complainant’s website who mistype the URL will end up at Respondent’s
website, and thus be initially confused as to whether Complainant endorses or
supports Respondent’s domain name. As Respondent is capitalizing on this
likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its mark for commercial gain (via
the use of revenue-generating advertisements) Respondent’s activities evidence
bad faith use and registration of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531
(Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (“[s]ince the disputed domain names contain
entire versions of Complainant’s marks and are used for something completely
unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant
would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search
engine website.”); see also Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net, D2003-0004
(WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s registration of an infringing
domain name to redirect Internet users to advertisements constituted bad faith
use of the domain name).
The Panel thus
finds that Respondent registered and used the <sciencdirect.com> domain name 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 <sciencdirect.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated:
March 24, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page