America Online, Inc. v. Refreshing
Springs
Claim
Number: FA0409000335393
Complainant is America Online, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented
by James R. Davis, of Arent Fox PLLC, 1050
Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Respondent is Refreshing Springs (“Respondent”),
3606 Park Lake Drive, Fortworth, TX 76133.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <ezaol.com> and <camericaonline.com>,
registered with Go Daddy Software, 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 September 27, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on September 27, 2004.
On
September 27, 2004, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum
that the domain names <ezaol.com> and <camericaonline.com>
are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the names. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent
is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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
September 28, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
October 18, 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@ezaol.com and postmaster@camericaonline.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
October 28, 2004, 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 <ezaol.com> and
<camericaonline.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s AOL, AOL.COM, and AMERICA ONLINE marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <ezaol.com> and <camericaonline.com>
domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <ezaol.com>
and <camericaonline.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
registered the AOL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“PTO”) on June 4, 1996 (Reg. No. 1,977,731).
The AOL mark is used in connection with a variety of services, including
the electronic transmission of data, a variety of computer services, and the
electronic storage and retrieval of data and documents. Complainant registered the AOL.COM mark with
the PTO on March 7, 2000 (Reg. No. 2,325,292).
The AOL.COM mark is used in connection with telecommunication services,
such as “electronic transmission of data, images and documents via computer
terminals; electronic store-and-forward messaging; electronic mail services,
and facsimile transmission.”
Complainant registered the AMERICA ONLINE mark with the PTO on October
16, 1990 (Reg. No. 1,618,148). The
AMERICA ONLINE mark is used in connection with “leasing access time to a
computer data base in the field of news, sports, financial, entertainment, and
educational information.”
Respondent
registered the disputed domain names <ezaol.com> and <camericaonline.com>
on September 3 and September 5 of 2003, respectively. On July 15, 2004, counsel for Complainant contacted Respondent
via e-mail in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution with regard to the
disputed domain name registrations.
Respondent responded to the e-mail that same day by stating:
The
Web Site Is for sale
895.00
And I Will Forward It To You a.s.a.p.
If
you are willing to buy we can talk other wise
dont
waste my time and yours with idle chatter
Complainant’s
counsel rejected Respondent’s offer to sell the domain name registrations. Shortly thereafter, the disputed domain
names began pointing to a website that solicits campaign donations for John
Kerry, the challenger for the 2004 United States presidential election.
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
registered the AOL, AOL.COM, and AMERICA ONLINE marks with the PTO. Therefore, Complainant has established
rights in the marks pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. 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 Am.
Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful
trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
creates a presumption of rights in a mark).
The domain name <ezaol.com>
incorporates Complainant’s AOL and AOL.COM marks in their entireties. Respondent simply prefaces the marks with
the letters “ez”. Past decisions under
the Policy have found the addition of the letters “ez” fails to alleviate the
confusing similarity that arises as the result of incorporating a third-party
mark within a domain name. Therefore,
consistent with prior decisions under the Policy, the Panel finds the domain
name <ezaol.com> confusingly similar to Complainant’s AOL and
AOL.COM marks pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Dollar Fin. Group, Inc. v. EZLoanMart,
FA 97309 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 25, 2001) (“The addition of the letters “ez” or
variants thereof to Complainant’s established LOAN MART mark is insufficient to
distinguish it from Complainant’s registered mark because LOAN MART remains the
dominant feature of the Respondent’s domain name.”); see also Am. Online,
Inc. v. Lusk, FA 283538 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 26, 2004) (finding the domain
name <ezicq.com> confusingly similar to Complainant’s ICQ mark).
The domain name <camericaonline.com>
incorporates Complainant’s AMERICA ONLINE mark in its entirety. Respondent has simply prefaced the mark with
the letter “c”. It is well established
that adding a single letter to a third-party mark fails to alleviate the
confusing similarity that arises as the result of incorporating a third-party
mark within a domain name. Therefore,
consistent with prior decisions under the Policy, the Panel finds the domain
name <camericaonline.com> confusingly similar to Complainant’s
AMERICA ONLINE mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Computerized
Security Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“[T]he addition of the letter ‘C’ does nothing to 'distinguish'
Respondent's domain name from Complainant's registered trademark, which remains
the principal element of the domain name.”); see also Am.
Online, Inc. v. Inforian, Inc., FA 115086 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 26, 2002) (“Respondent's <cicq.net > domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant's ICQ mark because it incorporates Complainant's entire
mark and merely adds the letter ‘c’ to the beginning.”).
Complaniant has
established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The failure of
Respondent to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
names. It also allows the Panel to
accept all reasonable allegations set forth in the Complaint as true. See Honeywell Int’l Inc. v.
Domain Deluxe, FA 269166 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2004) (“The
failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint functions both as an implicit
admission that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the
domain names, as well as a presumption that Complainant’s reasonable
allegations are true.”); see also 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. Clowers, FA 199821 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 14, 2003)
(finding that the failure to challenge a complainant’s allegations allows a
panel to accept all of the complainant’s reasonable allegations and inferences
as true).
There is nothing
in the record to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the domain names
<ezaol.com> and <camericaonline.com> pursuant to
paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. 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 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 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").
Respondent
offered to sell the domain name registrations for <ezaol.com> and <camericaonline.com>
to Complainant, the owner of the AOL, AOL.COM, and AMERICA ONLINE marks, for
$895.00. Prior decisions under the
Policy have held that the willingness of a domain name registrant to dispose of
its rights in domain names may suggest that the registrant lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the names. In the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent’s offer to
sell the disputed domain name registrations indicates that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the domain names. See Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. Hyun-Jun 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); see also Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding Respondent’s
conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use); see
also Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v.
Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that rights or legitimate
interests do not exist when one holds a domain name primarily for the purpose
of marketing it to the owner of a corresponding trademark).
Moreover,
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to the
website of a candidate for the 2004 United States presidential election. It is neither a bona fide offering of
goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy to use a
domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a third party’s mark
and divert Internet users to political websites. See Xerox
Corp. v. Anti-Globalization Domains, FA
210224 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (finding that Respondent did not use its
domain name in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use by diverting Internet users to a political website); see also Hoover Co. v. Anti-Globalization Domains, FA 206360 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2003) (“Respondent is not
making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name by diverting
Internet users to a website displaying political views that are not necessarily
the views of Complainant.”); see also Rittenhouse Dev. Co. v. Pro-Life
Domians, FA 193763 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2003) (“[T]he Panel finds
that Respondent's use of the domain name to direct Internet users to a
politically-charged website is not in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”); see also City Univ. of New York v.
Domains For Sale, FA 114477 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2002) (“Respondent's use
of Complainant's mark for its own unrelated political agenda does not
constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i), nor does it represent a fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
In conjunction
with the above, it is apparent that the domain names <ezaol.com> and
<camericaonline.com> have no connection with the content contained
on the attached political website. The
Panel is of the opinion that, but for the goodwill surrounding Complainant’s
AOL, AOL.COM, and AMERICA ONLINE marks, Complainant would not have registered
and used the disputed domain names. It
is apparent that Respondent has attempted to take advantage of the goodwill
surrounding Complainant’s mark to further its own agenda and therefore it may
be concluded that Respondent registered the domain names in bad faith. See McClatchy Mgm’t Serv., Inc. v. Please
DON'T Kill Your Baby, FA 153541 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2003) (“By
intentionally taking advantage of the goodwill surrounding Complainant’s mark
to further its own political agenda, Respondent registered the disputed domain
names in bad faith.”); see also Journal Gazette Co. v. Domain For Sale Inc.,
FA 12202 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 9, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and
used the domain name <fortwaynejournalgazette.com> in bad faith because
it linked the domain name to websites that were capable of tarnishing
Complainant’s mark due to the highly charged political content).
The preceding
paragraph also establishes that Respondent registered the disputed domain names
with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AOL,
AOL.COM, and AMERICA ONLINE marks, which is further evidence of Respondent’s
bad faith registration and use of the domain names. 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.").
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 <ezaol.com> and <camericaonline.com> domain
names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
November 11, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page