DECISION

 

Daniel Jarashow on behalf of Campmor, Inc. v. Baltic Consultants Limited

Claim Number: FA0112000103138

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Campmor, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ (“Complainant”) represented by Kevin R. Haley, of Brann & Isaacson.  Respondent is Baltic Consultants Limited, Tortola (“Respondent”).

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <wwwcampmor.com>, registered with Tucows, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on December 18, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 20, 2001.

 

On December 19, 2001, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wwwcampmor.com> is registered with Tucows, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Tucows, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows, 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 December 20, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 9, 2002 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@wwwcampmor.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 January 31, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

 

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name <wwwcampmor.com> is confusingly similar to the registered CAMPMOR mark, in which Complainant holds rights.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant registered the CAMPMOR service mark on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Registration No. 1,152,002 on April 21, 1981 in connection with retail and mail order sales of sporting goods and camping equipment.  Complainant has continuously used the marks in commerce since February 1978 and has also registered a trademark in CAMPMOR.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 24, 2000 and has used it to redirect users to an online gambling website.

 

DISCUSSION

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 the 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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(2) the 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established its rights in the CAMPMOR mark through registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and subsequent continuous use.

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds “www” and “.com” to it.  The disputed domain name is, thus, confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.  See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered BANK OF AMERICA trademark 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 Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of a domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has established its rights to and interests in the CAMPMOR mark.  Because Respondent has not submitted any evidence to suggest it has rights or interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel may presume that no such rights or interests exist.  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).

 

Respondent’s use of the infringing domain name to direct Internet users to an online casino cannot be deemed a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor can it be called a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by using Complainant’s trademarks); see also Société des Bains de Mer v. International Lotteries, D2000-1326 (WIPO Jan. 8, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent used the <casinomontecarlo.com> and <montecarlocasinos.com> domain names in connection with an online gambling website).

 

Further, there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known as “wwwcampmor” or “wwwcampmor.com.”  Respondent is only known to this Panel as Baltic Consultants Limited.  See Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark contained in the domain name where Complainant has not permitted Respondent to use the NOKIA mark and no other facts or elements can justify prior rights or a legitimate connection to the names “Nokia” and/or “wwwNokia”); see also Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc. & D3M Domain Sales, AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where no such right or interest was immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent had not come forward to suggest any right or interest it may have possessed).

 

The Panel thus finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that its CAMPMOR mark has achieved sufficient fame that Respondent was aware of its existence and its inherent proprietary nature.  See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration).  In the absence of a contrary claim by Respondent, the Panel may accept Complainant’s assertion as true.  See 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”).

 

By using Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name, Respondent attempted to redirect Internet users to its gambling website who intended to visit <www.campmor.com> but inadvertently omitted the period between “www” and “campmor.”  This practice of “typosquatting” has been recognized as bad faith registration and use of a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See AltaVista Co. v. Stoneybrook, D2000-0886 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (awarding <wwwalavista.com>, among other misspellings of altavista.com, to Complainant); see also Dow Jones & Co. & Dow Jones, L.P. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (awarding domain names <wwwdowjones.com>, <wwwwsj.com>, <wwwbarrons.com>, and <wwwbarronsmag.com> to Complainants).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be hereby granted.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwwcampmor.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

 

Dated: February 5, 2002