DJ Cheaney c/o National Bird Control v.
Doug Willard c/o D&S Specialty Products
Claim
Number: FA0407000298147
Complainant is DJ Cheaney c/o National Bird Control (“Complainant”),
represented by Kathleen T. Petrich, of Stokes Lawrence, P.S.,
800 Fifth Ave. Suite 4000, Seattle, WA 98104-3179. Respondent is Doug Willard
c/o D&S Specialty Products (“Respondent”),
13609 NE 126th PL Ste. 150,
Kirkland, WA 98034.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <nationalbirdcontrol.net>, registered with
Go Daddy Software, Inc., d/b/a GoDaddy.com.
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 July 19, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on July 22, 2004.
On
July 20, 2004, Go Daddy Software, Inc., d/b/a GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <nationalbirdcontrol.net> is
registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc., d/b/a GoDaddy.com and that Respondent
is the current registrant of the name. Go Daddy Software, Inc., d/b/a
GoDaddy.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software,
Inc., d/b/a GoDaddy.com 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
July 26, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
August 16, 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@nationalbirdcontrol.net 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
August 21, 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 <nationalbirdcontrol.net>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s NATIONAL BIRD CONTROL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <nationalbirdcontrol.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <nationalbirdcontrol.net>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant, DJ
Cheaney, c/o National Bird Control, has been in business under the service mark
NATIONAL BIRD CONTROL since at least as early as May 1999. Complainant serves customers in the western
states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and California. Complainant’s services and products are also
offered and promoted through its registered website at the
<nationalbirdcontrol.com> domain name.
In addition,
Complainant has registered the NATIONAL BIRD CONTROL mark with the state of
Washington (Reg. No. 032387, issued July 12, 2004).
Furthermore,
Complainant utilized the disputed domain name for approximately three years
before Complainant inadvertently did not renew the registration. Within a short period after Complainant’s
registration accidentally relapsed, Respondent registered the <nationalbirdcontrol.net>
domain name on December 22, 2003.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer bird control
services.
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 that it has rights in the NATIONAL BIRD CONTROL mark through
registration with the state of Washington, and through continued use of its
marks in commerce for the last five years.
See Quality Custom Cabinetry, Inc. v. Cabinet Wholesalers,
Inc., FA 115349 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2002) (finding that Complainant’s
trademark registrations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey operated as evidence
that Complainant had sufficient standing to bring a claim under the UDRP); see
also Lee Enters., Inc. v. Polanski, FA 135619 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 22,
2003) (finding evidence that Complainant had established rights in the BILLINGS
GAZETTE mark through registration with the Montana and Wyoming state trademark
officials).
The domain name
registered by Respondent, <nationalbirdcontrol.net>, is identical
to Complainant’s NATIONAL BIRD CONTROL mark because the only difference is the
addition of the top-level domain “.net.”
The addition of a top-level domain does not significantly distinguish
the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Little
Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001)
(finding that <mysticlake.net> is plainly identical to Complainant’s
MYSTIC LAKE trademark and service mark); see also Nike, Inc. v. Coleman, D2000-1120 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that
the domain name <nike.net> is identical to Complainant’s famous NIKE
mark); see also Kabushiki Kaisha
Toshiba v. Shan Computers, D2000-0325 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that
the domain name <toshiba.net> is identical to Complainant’s trademark
TOSHIBA).
The
Panel finds that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant
asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain
name. Due to Respondent’s failure to
respond to the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights
or legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima facie case
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See
G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002)
(holding that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on
Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion
because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the
respondent”); see also Clerical
Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28,
2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by
Complainant that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient
to shift the burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or
legitimate interest does exist).
Moreover, the
Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as
true because Respondent has not submitted a Response. See Talk City, Inc.
v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (stating that “[i]n the absence
of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the
Complaint”); see also Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing,
inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s
failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations
of Complainant to be deemed true).
Respondent is
using the <nationalbirdcontrol.net> domain name to redirect
Internet users to a website that advertises and offers bird control services,
services identical to those offered by Complainant. Respondent’s use of a domain name identical to Complainant’s
NATIONAL BIRD CONTROL mark to redirect Internet users interested in
Complainant’s services to a commercial website that offers identical bird
control services is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of good
or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See MBS Computers Ltd. v. Workman, FA 96632 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2001)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests when Respondent is using a domain
name identical to Complainant’s mark and is offering similar services); see
also Avery Dennison Corp. v. Steele, FA 133626 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Jan 10, 2003) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name where it used Complainant’s mark, without
authorization, to attract Internet users to its business, which competed with
Complainant); see also N. Coast
Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that diverted
Internet users to Respondent’s competing website through the use of
Complainant’s mark); see also Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA
102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services
website, which competed with Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods
or services).
Nothing in the
record, including the WHOIS domain name registration information, suggests that
Respondent is commonly known by the domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). 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 Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001)
(finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent
is not known by the mark); see also Hartford
Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29,
2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain
names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent
has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods
and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel finds
that Complainant fulfilled Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant
contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name for commercial
gain. Respondent’s domain name diverts
Internet users wishing to search under Complainant’s mark to Respondent’s
commercial website through the use of a domain name identical to Complainant’s
mark. Respondent’s practice of
diversion, motivated by commercial gain, through the use of an identical domain
name evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See
Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net,
FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain
name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks,
thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see
also America Online, Inc. v. Fu,
D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent intentionally
attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by
creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and offering the
same chat services via his website as Complainant); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab.,
D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent's use of
the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are
offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that
Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the
site); see also Luck's Music
Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000)
(finding that Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and registration by
linking the domain name to a website that offers services similar to
Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s marks).
Furthermore,
Respondent registered the domain name for the primary purpose of disrupting
Complainant’s business by redirecting Internet traffic intended for Complainant
to Respondent’s website, which directly competes with Complainant’s
business. Registration of a domain name
for the primary purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor is evidence
of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Dec. 23, 2000) (concluding that domain names were registered and used in
bad faith where Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in
the same market area); see also Hewlett
Packard Co. v. Full Sys., FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000) (finding
that Respondent registered and used the domain name primarily for the purpose
of disrupting the business of Complainant by offering personal e-mail accounts
under the domain name <openmail.com> which is identical to Complainant’s
services under the OPENMAIL mark).
In addition,
Complainant utilized the disputed domain name for approximately three years
before Complainant inadvertently did not renew the registration. Within a short period after Complainant’s
registration accidentally relapsed, Respondent registered the <nationalbirdcontrol.net>
domain name. The Panel finds that,
since Respondent did not offer any evidence to the contrary, Respondent’s registration
and use of the domain name due to Complainant’s oversight is evidence of bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Savage Sys., Inc. v. Lorna
Kang, FA 102480 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2001) (inferring that Respondent
had knowledge that the <savagearchery.com> domain name previously
belonged to Complainant when Respondent registered said domain name the very
same day Complainant’s registration lapsed); see also Tercent Inc.
v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (inferring that Respondent had knowledge
that the <tercent.com> domain name, which previously belonged to
Complainant, when Respondent registered said domain name the very same day
Complainant’s registration lapsed); see also BAA plc v. Spektrum Media Inc., D2000-1179 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2000)
(finding bad faith where Respondent took advantage of Complainant’s failure to
renew a domain name); see also R-H-Interactive
Jobfinance v. Mooburi Services, FA 137041 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2003)
(finding that Respondent’s registration and use of the <jobfinance.com>
domain name “immediately after Complainant failed to timely renew the domain
name registration” was evidence of bad faith).
The Panel finds
that Complainant fulfilled 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 <nationalbirdcontrol.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated:
September 7, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page