Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Park Minwoo
Claim Number: FA0612000863197
Complainant is Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Heidi C. Constantine of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 1 Met Life Plaza, 27-01 Queens Plaza North, Long Island City, NY, 11101. Respondent is Park Minwoo (“Respondent”), Bucheon Si Sosa-gu, 105Dong 406Ho Samik Celamic 2Cha Apt. Goean-dong, Gyeonggi-Do, 422704, KR.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <metlifeuk.com>, registered with Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a domain.ca.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically December 7, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint December 12, 2006.
On December 11, 2006, Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a domain.ca confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <metlifeuk.com> domain name is registered with Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a domain.ca and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc., d/b/a domain.ca, verified that Respondent is bound by the Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a domain.ca registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On December 14, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 3, 2007, 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@metlifeuk.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 8, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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 National Arbitration 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. The domain name that Respondent registered, <metlifeuk.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <metlifeuk.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <metlifeuk.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, is a leader in the insurance and financial services industry. In connection with the provision of these services, Complainant registered a number of trade and service marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) including the METLIFE mark (Reg. No. 1,541,862 issued May 30, 1989).
Respondent registered the <metlifeuk.com> domain name September 5, 2006. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays click-through links to unrelated websites as well as pop-up advertisements to unrelated websites. Additionally, Respondent has made an effort to sell the disputed domain name for $2,500, an amount that far exceeds the registration fee of the domain name.
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 will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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 established with extrinsic evidence in this proceeding that it has rights in the METLIFE mark through registration with the USPTO. The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration and use of the METLIFE mark sufficiently establishes rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
Complainant further asserts that Respondent has no such
rights to or legitimate interest in the METLIFE mark and no permission to use
the mark in a domain name. The disputed
domain name, <metlifeuk.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
METLIFE mark. Moreover, the disputed
domain name features Complainant’s entire METLIFE mark and adds the geographic
identifier “
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant established rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests in the <metlifeuk.com> domain name. Where Complainant makes a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4 (a)(ii), the burden shifts to the Respondent to bring forth substantial evidence that it does possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); 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 the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
In addition, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that features links to various non-competing, unrelated websites as well as pop-up advertisements. The Panel will presume that Respondent receives referral fees from these pop-up advertisements. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ (c)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that using a domain name to direct Internet traffic to a website featuring pop-up advertisements and links to various third-party websites is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the registrant presumably receives compensation for each misdirected Internet user); see also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host a series of hyperlinks and a banner advertisement was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <metlifeuk.com> domain name and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register domain names featuring Complainant’s METLIFE mark in any way. Considering the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by the complainant’s marks and the 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 satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant also alleges that Respondent acted in bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent has attempted to sell the disputed domain name for $2,500., an amount that far exceeds the registration fee of the domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to sell the disputed domain name sufficiently evinces bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. AchievementTec, Inc., FA 192316 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name for $2,000 sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)); see also Banca Popolare Friuladria S.p.A. v. Zago, D2000-0793 (WIPO Sept. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent offered the domain names for sale).
In addition, Respondent’s use will likely cause confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship of and affiliation with the resulting website and associated links. The Panel finds that such use of a domain name for Respondent’s own commercial gain is additional evidence of Respondent’s 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 the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Hancock Fabrics, Inc. v. Active Advantage, Inc., FA 204111 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s use of the <hancockfabric.com> domain name, a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s HANCOCK FABRICS mark, to redirect Internet traffic to a website that provides a selection of jokes demonstrates Respondent’ bad faith use of the disputed domain name because Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website, which evidences bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied 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 <metlifeuk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: January 22, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum