AARP v. live love
Claim
Number: FA0403000248740
Complainant is AARP (“Complainant”), represented by Melise R. Blakeslee, of McDermott, Will & Emery,
600 13th Street N.W., Washington DC 20005.
Respondent is live love (“Respondent”),
203 West 46th Street, New York, NY 10019.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <wwaarp.com>, <wwwwaarp.com>,
and <wwwaarp-pharmacy.com>, registered with Enom, 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.
Hon.
Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on March 22, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 25, 2004.
On
March 24, 2004, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
names <wwaarp.com>, <wwwwaarp.com>, and <wwwaarp-pharmacy.com>
are registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the names. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by
the Enom, 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
March 26, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
April 15, 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@wwaarp.com, postmaster@wwwwaarp.com, and
postmaster@wwwaarp-pharmacy.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
April 27, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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 <wwaarp.com>, <wwwwaarp.com>,
and <wwwaarp-pharmacy.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s AARP and AARP PHARMACY SERVICE and Design marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <wwaarp.com>, <wwwwaarp.com>,
and <wwwaarp-pharmacy.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwaarp.com>,
<wwwwaarp.com>, and <wwwaarp-pharmacy.com> domain
names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant is
the leading nonprofit, membership organization in the United States that exists
to address the needs and interests of persons 50 years old or older. 35 million members are a part of
Complainant’s organization, including nearly half of those people eligible for
membership. Complainant maintains offices
in the United States and U.S. territories, and its members have organized over
2,000 local chapters.
Complainant has
made available a wide range of products and services to its members, including
retail pharmaceutical services. Such
services are offered through approved providers under license and service
agreements with Complainant and its wholly owned subsidiary, AARP Services,
Inc.
In connection
with the foregoing, Complainant has registered the AARP and AARP PHARMACY
SERVICE and Design marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”). The AARP mark has been used
since 1959 and was registered on August 24, 1976 in connection with, inter
alia, “retail and mail order pharmaceutical store services” (Reg. No.
1,046,998).
The AARP PHARMACY
SERVICE and Design mark has been used since 1982 and was registered on August
23, 1983 in connection with “retail over-the-counter and mail order pharmacy
services” (Reg. No. 1,249,450).
Respondent
registered the disputed domain names <wwaarp.com> and <wwwwaarp.com>
on March 11, 2003. Respondent
registered the disputed domain name <wwwaarp-pharmacy.com> on
August 20, 2003. The domain names are
currently being used to host pro-life content that displays photographs of
aborted babies.
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.
Respondent has
established rights in the AARP and AARP PHARMACY SERVICE and Design marks as a
result of its registration of the marks with the governmental authority within
the United States, namely the USPTO. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5,
2002) (finding that the 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 Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16,
2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they
are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”).
Each of the
disputed domain names includes Complainant’s AARP mark in its entirety. See
Nikon, Inc. v. Technilab, Inc., D2000-1774 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2000) (holding
that confusing similarity under the Policy is decided upon the inclusion of a
trademark in the domain name); see also Magnum Piering, Inc. v. Mudjackers
& Wilson, D2000-1525 (WIPO Jan. 29, 2001) (holding that confusing
similarity under the Policy is decided upon the inclusion of a trademark in the
domain name).
In the case of
the domain names <wwaarp.com> and <wwwwaarp.com>,
Respondent has merely included misspellings of the prefix “www” to a URL. In addition, Respondent has omitted the
period that separates the “www” from the desired domain name. Such misspellings and omissions fail to
distinguish the domain names from Complainant’s AARP mark because Respondent is
engaging in the practice of typosquatting. See Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO
Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the deliberate introduction of errors or changes,
such as the addition of a fourth “w” or the omission of periods or other such
generic typos do not change respondent’s infringement on a core trademark held
by Complainant); see also Bank of
Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding
that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes
advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the
domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see
also Marie Claire Album v. Geoffrey Blakely, D2002-1015 (WIPO Dec. 23,
2002) (holding that the letters "www" are not distinct in the
"Internet world" and thus Respondent 's <wwwmarieclaire.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MARIE CLAIRE trademark).
In the case of
the domain name <wwwaarp-pharmacy.com>, Respondent has omitted the
period that typically separates the URL prefix “www” from the domain name. Respondent has also added a hyphen and a
descriptive word signifying a type of service provided by Complainant. Such changes fail to distinguish the domain
name from Complainant’s mark under the Policy.
See Teradyne Inc. v. 4Tel
Tech., D2000-0026 (WIPO May 9, 2000) ( “[The] addition of a hyphen to the
registered mark is an insubstantial change. Both the mark and the domain name
would be pronounced in the identical fashion, by eliminating the
hyphen."); see also InfoSpace.com
v. Ofer, D2000-0075 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (“The domain name ‘info-space.com’
is identical to Complainant’s INFOSPACE trademark. The addition of a hyphen and
.com are not distinguishing features.”); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24,
2002) (finding that because the subject domain name incorporated the VIAGRA
mark in its entirety, and deviated only by the addition of the word “bomb,” the
domain name was rendered confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark); see
also Westfield Corp., Inc. v. Hobbs,
D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <westfieldshopping.com>
domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant
element).
Complainant has
established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
not provided a Response to the Panel.
The Panel construes such a failure as an implicit admission that
Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the domain names. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency
Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to
respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest
in the domain names); see also Am.
Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where Respondent fails to respond); see also
Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure
of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is
tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard.”)
There is nothing
in the record to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed
domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc.
v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (finding that the WHOIS
information, and its failure to imply that Respondent is commonly known by the
disputed domain name, is a 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").
In addition,
Respondent is using the domain names that are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s AARP mark to host content completely unrelated to the mark. Thus, Respondent registered the domain names
to take advantage of the fame associated with the AARP marks, which Complainant
developed therein, in order to attract Internet users to its unrelated
websites. Such use is not a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because Respondent's sole
purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion with Complainant's
website and marks, its use of the names was not in connection with the offering
of goods or services or any other fair use); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Communications
Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that use of
Complainant’s mark “as a portal to suck surfers into a site sponsored by
Respondent hardly seems legitimate”).
Moreover,
Respondent is engaged in the practice of typosquatting. Typosquatting has been consistently found to
evidence a respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in domain names
under the Policy. Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent’s typosquatting activity is affirmative evidence
that it lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See
Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues
v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting as a means of
redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a
bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services
offered at that site.”); see also Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain
Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23,
2003) (holding that Respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of
Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that Respondent
lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis á vis
Complainant).
Thus,
Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Consistent with
the foregoing, typosquatting is also evidence of bad faith registration and use
under the Policy. Respondent has
engaged in typosquatting as previously mentioned. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used
the disputed domain names <wwaarp.com>, <wwwwaarp.com>,
and <wwwaarp-pharmacy.com> in bad faith as a result of its
typosquatting activity. See L.L.
Bean, Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol, FA 96504 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 12, 2001)
(finding that Respondent acted in bad faith by establishing a pattern of
registering misspellings of famous trademarks and names); see also Canadian
Tire Corp., Ltd. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111,
D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (holding that an “absence of a dot between the
‘www’ and ‘canadiantire.com’ [in the
<wwwcanadiantire.com> domain name is] likely to confuse Internet users,
encourage them to access Respondent’s site” and evidenced bad faith
registration and use of the domain name); see also Medline, Inc.
v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (“[I]n typosquatting cases, such as this one, it
would be difficult for Respondent to prove to the Panel that it did not have
actual knowledge of Complainant’s distinctive MEDLINE mark when it registered
the infringing <wwwmedline.com> domain name”).
Moreover, the AARP mark is well-known throughout the United States. The AARP mark has been listed on the
principal register of the USPTO for decades.
Thus, when Respondent registered the disputed domain names, Respondent
either knew or should have known about Complainant’s rights in the AARP mark. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Ashby, D2000-0241 (WIPO June 14, 2000)
(finding that the fame of the YAHOO! mark negated any plausible explanation for
Respondent’s registration of the <yahooventures.com> domain name); see
also Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002)
(“[T]here is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably
should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively.”);
see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135,
1148 (9th
Cir. 2002) ("Where an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be
similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse.").
Thus,
Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <wwaarp.com>, <wwwwaarp.com>, and
<wwwaarp-pharmacy.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated:
May 11, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page