Avid Dating Life, Inc. v. Private Whois Service
Claim Number: FA1004001318204
Complainant is Avid Dating Life, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk,
Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <aehleymadison.com>, <aeshleymadison.com>, <aqshleymadison.com>, <asbhleymadison.com>, <asbleymadison.com>, <asehleymadison.com>, <ashbleymadison.com>, <ashl3eymadison.com>, <ashl3ymadison.com>, <ashl4eymadison.com>, <ashl4ymadison.com>, <ashldeymadison.com>, <ashle3ymadison.com>, <ashle4ymadison.com>, <ashle6madison.com>, <ashle6ymadison.com>, <ashle7madison.com>, <ashle7ymadison.com>, <ashledymadison.com>, <ashlegmadison.com>, <ashlegymadison.com>, <ashlehmadison.com>, <ashlehymadison.com>, <ashlesymadison.com>, <ashley6madison.com>, <ashley7madison.com>, <ashleygmadison.com>, <ashleyhmadison.com>, <ashleyjadison.com>, <ashleyjmadison.com>, <ashleykadison.com>, <ashleykmadison.com>, <ashleymacdison.com>, <ashleymacison.com>, <ashleymad8ison.com>, <ashleymad8son.com>, <ashleymad9ison.com>, <ashleymad9son.com>, <ashleymadieon.com>, <ashleymadieson.com>, <ashleymadis0on.com>, <ashleymadis9n.com>, <ashleymadis9on.com>, <ashleymadision.com>, <ashleymadiskn.com>, <ashleymadiskon.com>, <ashleymadisln.com>, <ashleymadislon.com>, <ashleymadisoh.com>, <ashleymadisohn.com>, <ashleymadisoj.com>, <ashleymadisojn.com>, <ashleymadiwon.com>, <ashleymadiwson.com>, <ashleymadixon.com>, <ashleymadixson.com>, <ashleymadizon.com>, <ashleymadizson.com>, <ashleymadjison.com>, <ashleymadkison.com>, <ashleymaedison.com>, <ashleymaeison.com>, <ashleymardison.com>, <ashleymaxdison.com>, <ashleymaxison.com>, <ashleymjadison.com>, <ashleymkadison.com>, <ashleymqadison.com>, <ashleymqdison.com>, <ashleymwadison.com>, <ashleymwdison.com>, <ashleymzadison.com>, <ashleymzdison.com>, <ashloeymadison.com>, <ashlpeymadison.com>, <ashlseymadison.com>, <ashlsymadison.com>, <ashnleymadison.com>, <ashoeymadison.com>, <asholeymadison.com>, <ashpeymadison.com>, <ashpleymadison.com>, <ashuleymadison.com>, <ashyleymadison.com>, <asnhleymadison.com>, <asnleymadison.com>, <asuhleymadison.com>, <asuleymadison.com>, <aswhleymadison.com>, <asxhleymadison.com>, <asyhleymadison.com>, <asyleymadison.com>, <aszhleymadison.com>, <awhleymadison.com>, <awshleymadison.com>, <axhleymadison.com>, <axshleymadison.com>, <azshleymadison.com>, <qashleymadison.com>, <washleymadison.com>, and <zashleymadison.com>, registered with Internet.Bs Corp.
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 electronically on April 8, 2010.
On April 10, 2010, Internet.Bs Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <aehleymadison.com>, <aeshleymadison.com>, <aqshleymadison.com>, <asbhleymadison.com>, <asbleymadison.com>, <asehleymadison.com>, <ashbleymadison.com>, <ashl3eymadison.com>, <ashl3ymadison.com>, <ashl4eymadison.com>, <ashl4ymadison.com>, <ashldeymadison.com>, <ashle3ymadison.com>, <ashle4ymadison.com>, <ashle6madison.com>, <ashle6ymadison.com>, <ashle7madison.com>, <ashle7ymadison.com>, <ashledymadison.com>, <ashlegmadison.com>, <ashlegymadison.com>, <ashlehmadison.com>, <ashlehymadison.com>, <ashlesymadison.com>, <ashley6madison.com>, <ashley7madison.com>, <ashleygmadison.com>, <ashleyhmadison.com>, <ashleyjadison.com>, <ashleyjmadison.com>, <ashleykadison.com>, <ashleykmadison.com>, <ashleymacdison.com>, <ashleymacison.com>, <ashleymad8ison.com>, <ashleymad8son.com>, <ashleymad9ison.com>, <ashleymad9son.com>, <ashleymadieon.com>, <ashleymadieson.com>, <ashleymadis0on.com>, <ashleymadis9n.com>, <ashleymadis9on.com>, <ashleymadision.com>, <ashleymadiskn.com>, <ashleymadiskon.com>, <ashleymadisln.com>, <ashleymadislon.com>, <ashleymadisoh.com>, <ashleymadisohn.com>, <ashleymadisoj.com>, <ashleymadisojn.com>, <ashleymadiwon.com>, <ashleymadiwson.com>, <ashleymadixon.com>, <ashleymadixson.com>, <ashleymadizon.com>, <ashleymadizson.com>, <ashleymadjison.com>, <ashleymadkison.com>, <ashleymaedison.com>, <ashleymaeison.com>, <ashleymardison.com>, <ashleymaxdison.com>, <ashleymaxison.com>, <ashleymjadison.com>, <ashleymkadison.com>, <ashleymqadison.com>, <ashleymqdison.com>, <ashleymwadison.com>, <ashleymwdison.com>, <ashleymzadison.com>, <ashleymzdison.com>, <ashloeymadison.com>, <ashlpeymadison.com>, <ashlseymadison.com>, <ashlsymadison.com>, <ashnleymadison.com>, <ashoeymadison.com>, <asholeymadison.com>, <ashpeymadison.com>, <ashpleymadison.com>, <ashuleymadison.com>, <ashyleymadison.com>, <asnhleymadison.com>, <asnleymadison.com>, <asuhleymadison.com>, <asuleymadison.com>, <aswhleymadison.com>, <asxhleymadison.com>, <asyhleymadison.com>, <asyleymadison.com>, <aszhleymadison.com>, <awhleymadison.com>, <awshleymadison.com>, <axhleymadison.com>, <axshleymadison.com>, <azshleymadison.com>, <qashleymadison.com>, <washleymadison.com>, and <zashleymadison.com> domain names are registered with Internet.Bs Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Internet.Bs Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet.Bs Corp. 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 April 12, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 3, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@aehleymadison.com, postmaster@aeshleymadison.com, postmaster@aqshleymadison.com, postmaster@asbhleymadison.com, postmaster@asbleymadison.com, postmaster@asehleymadison.com, postmaster@ashbleymadison.com, postmaster@ashl3eymadison.com, postmaster@ashl3ymadison.com, postmaster@ashl4eymadison.com, postmaster@ashl4ymadison.com, postmaster@ashldeymadison.com, postmaster@ashle3ymadison.com, postmaster@ashle4ymadison.com, postmaster@ashle6madison.com, postmaster@ashle6ymadison.com, postmaster@ashle7madison.com, postmaster@ashle7ymadison.com, postmaster@ashledymadison.com, postmaster@ashlegmadison.com, postmaster@ashlegymadison.com, postmaster@ashlehmadison.com, postmaster@ashlehymadison.com, postmaster@ashlesymadison.com, postmaster@ashley6madison.com, postmaster@ashley7madison.com, postmaster@ashleygmadison.com, postmaster@ashleyhmadison.com, postmaster@ashleyjadison.com, postmaster@ashleyjmadison.com, postmaster@ashleykadison.com, postmaster@ashleykmadison.com, postmaster@ashleymacdison.com, postmaster@ashleymacison.com, postmaster@ashleymad8ison.com, postmaster@ashleymad8son.com, postmaster@ashleymad9ison.com, postmaster@ashleymad9son.com, postmaster@ashleymadieon.com, postmaster@ashleymadieson.com, postmaster@ashleymadis0on.com, postmaster@ashleymadis9n.com, postmaster@ashleymadis9on.com, postmaster@ashleymadision.com, postmaster@ashleymadiskn.com, postmaster@ashleymadiskon.com, postmaster@ashleymadisln.com, postmaster@ashleymadislon.com, postmaster@ashleymadisoh.com, postmaster@ashleymadisohn.com, postmaster@ashleymadisoj.com, postmaster@ashleymadisojn.com, postmaster@ashleymadiwon.com, postmaster@ashleymadiwson.com, postmaster@ashleymadixon.com, postmaster@ashleymadixson.com, postmaster@ashleymadizon.com, postmaster@ashleymadizson.com, postmaster@ashleymadjison.com, postmaster@ashleymadkison.com, postmaster@ashleymaedison.com, postmaster@ashleymaeison.com, postmaster@ashleymardison.com, postmaster@ashleymaxdison.com, postmaster@ashleymaxison.com, postmaster@ashleymjadison.com, postmaster@ashleymkadison.com, postmaster@ashleymqadison.com, postmaster@ashleymqdison.com, postmaster@ashleymwadison.com, postmaster@ashleymwdison.com, postmaster@ashleymzadison.com, postmaster@ashleymzdison.com, postmaster@ashloeymadison.com, postmaster@ashlpeymadison.com, postmaster@ashlseymadison.com, postmaster@ashlsymadison.com, postmaster@ashnleymadison.com, postmaster@ashoeymadison.com, postmaster@asholeymadison.com, postmaster@ashpeymadison.com, postmaster@ashpleymadison.com, postmaster@ashuleymadison.com, postmaster@ashyleymadison.com, postmaster@asnhleymadison.com, postmaster@asnleymadison.com, postmaster@asuhleymadison.com, postmaster@asuleymadison.com, postmaster@aswhleymadison.com, postmaster@asxhleymadison.com, postmaster@asyhleymadison.com, postmaster@asyleymadison.com, postmaster@aszhleymadison.com, postmaster@awhleymadison.com, postmaster@awshleymadison.com, postmaster@axhleymadison.com, postmaster@axshleymadison.com, postmaster@azshleymadison.com, postmaster@qashleymadison.com, postmaster@washleymadison.com, postmaster@zashleymadison.com by e-mail. Also on April 12, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 7, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <aehleymadison.com>, <aeshleymadison.com>, <aqshleymadison.com>, <asbhleymadison.com>, <asbleymadison.com>, <asehleymadison.com>, <ashbleymadison.com>, <ashl3eymadison.com>, <ashl3ymadison.com>, <ashl4eymadison.com>, <ashl4ymadison.com>, <ashldeymadison.com>, <ashle3ymadison.com>, <ashle4ymadison.com>, <ashle6madison.com>, <ashle6ymadison.com>, <ashle7madison.com>, <ashle7ymadison.com>, <ashledymadison.com>, <ashlegmadison.com>, <ashlegymadison.com>, <ashlehmadison.com>, <ashlehymadison.com>, <ashlesymadison.com>, <ashley6madison.com>, <ashley7madison.com>, <ashleygmadison.com>, <ashleyhmadison.com>, <ashleyjadison.com>, <ashleyjmadison.com>, <ashleykadison.com>, <ashleykmadison.com>, <ashleymacdison.com>, <ashleymacison.com>, <ashleymad8ison.com>, <ashleymad8son.com>, <ashleymad9ison.com>, <ashleymad9son.com>, <ashleymadieon.com>, <ashleymadieson.com>, <ashleymadis0on.com>, <ashleymadis9n.com>, <ashleymadis9on.com>, <ashleymadision.com>, <ashleymadiskn.com>, <ashleymadiskon.com>, <ashleymadisln.com>, <ashleymadislon.com>, <ashleymadisoh.com>, <ashleymadisohn.com>, <ashleymadisoj.com>, <ashleymadisojn.com>, <ashleymadiwon.com>, <ashleymadiwson.com>, <ashleymadixon.com>, <ashleymadixson.com>, <ashleymadizon.com>, <ashleymadizson.com>, <ashleymadjison.com>, <ashleymadkison.com>, <ashleymaedison.com>, <ashleymaeison.com>, <ashleymardison.com>, <ashleymaxdison.com>, <ashleymaxison.com>, <ashleymjadison.com>, <ashleymkadison.com>, <ashleymqadison.com>, <ashleymqdison.com>, <ashleymwadison.com>, <ashleymwdison.com>, <ashleymzadison.com>, <ashleymzdison.com>, <ashloeymadison.com>, <ashlpeymadison.com>, <ashlseymadison.com>, <ashlsymadison.com>, <ashnleymadison.com>, <ashoeymadison.com>, <asholeymadison.com>, <ashpeymadison.com>, <ashpleymadison.com>, <ashuleymadison.com>, <ashyleymadison.com>, <asnhleymadison.com>, <asnleymadison.com>, <asuhleymadison.com>, <asuleymadison.com>, <aswhleymadison.com>, <asxhleymadison.com>, <asyhleymadison.com>, <asyleymadison.com>, <aszhleymadison.com>, <awhleymadison.com>, <awshleymadison.com>, <axhleymadison.com>, <axshleymadison.com>, <azshleymadison.com>, <qashleymadison.com>, <washleymadison.com>, and <zashleymadison.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ASHLEY MADISON mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <aehleymadison.com>, <aeshleymadison.com>, <aqshleymadison.com>, <asbhleymadison.com>, <asbleymadison.com>, <asehleymadison.com>, <ashbleymadison.com>, <ashl3eymadison.com>, <ashl3ymadison.com>, <ashl4eymadison.com>, <ashl4ymadison.com>, <ashldeymadison.com>, <ashle3ymadison.com>, <ashle4ymadison.com>, <ashle6madison.com>, <ashle6ymadison.com>, <ashle7madison.com>, <ashle7ymadison.com>, <ashledymadison.com>, <ashlegmadison.com>, <ashlegymadison.com>, <ashlehmadison.com>, <ashlehymadison.com>, <ashlesymadison.com>, <ashley6madison.com>, <ashley7madison.com>, <ashleygmadison.com>, <ashleyhmadison.com>, <ashleyjadison.com>, <ashleyjmadison.com>, <ashleykadison.com>, <ashleykmadison.com>, <ashleymacdison.com>, <ashleymacison.com>, <ashleymad8ison.com>, <ashleymad8son.com>, <ashleymad9ison.com>, <ashleymad9son.com>, <ashleymadieon.com>, <ashleymadieson.com>, <ashleymadis0on.com>, <ashleymadis9n.com>, <ashleymadis9on.com>, <ashleymadision.com>, <ashleymadiskn.com>, <ashleymadiskon.com>, <ashleymadisln.com>, <ashleymadislon.com>, <ashleymadisoh.com>, <ashleymadisohn.com>, <ashleymadisoj.com>, <ashleymadisojn.com>, <ashleymadiwon.com>, <ashleymadiwson.com>, <ashleymadixon.com>, <ashleymadixson.com>, <ashleymadizon.com>, <ashleymadizson.com>, <ashleymadjison.com>, <ashleymadkison.com>, <ashleymaedison.com>, <ashleymaeison.com>, <ashleymardison.com>, <ashleymaxdison.com>, <ashleymaxison.com>, <ashleymjadison.com>, <ashleymkadison.com>, <ashleymqadison.com>, <ashleymqdison.com>, <ashleymwadison.com>, <ashleymwdison.com>, <ashleymzadison.com>, <ashleymzdison.com>, <ashloeymadison.com>, <ashlpeymadison.com>, <ashlseymadison.com>, <ashlsymadison.com>, <ashnleymadison.com>, <ashoeymadison.com>, <asholeymadison.com>, <ashpeymadison.com>, <ashpleymadison.com>, <ashuleymadison.com>, <ashyleymadison.com>, <asnhleymadison.com>, <asnleymadison.com>, <asuhleymadison.com>, <asuleymadison.com>, <aswhleymadison.com>, <asxhleymadison.com>, <asyhleymadison.com>, <asyleymadison.com>, <aszhleymadison.com>, <awhleymadison.com>, <awshleymadison.com>, <axhleymadison.com>, <axshleymadison.com>, <azshleymadison.com>, <qashleymadison.com>, <washleymadison.com>, and <zashleymadison.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <aehleymadison.com>, <aeshleymadison.com>, <aqshleymadison.com>, <asbhleymadison.com>, <asbleymadison.com>, <asehleymadison.com>, <ashbleymadison.com>, <ashl3eymadison.com>, <ashl3ymadison.com>, <ashl4eymadison.com>, <ashl4ymadison.com>, <ashldeymadison.com>, <ashle3ymadison.com>, <ashle4ymadison.com>, <ashle6madison.com>, <ashle6ymadison.com>, <ashle7madison.com>, <ashle7ymadison.com>, <ashledymadison.com>, <ashlegmadison.com>, <ashlegymadison.com>, <ashlehmadison.com>, <ashlehymadison.com>, <ashlesymadison.com>, <ashley6madison.com>, <ashley7madison.com>, <ashleygmadison.com>, <ashleyhmadison.com>, <ashleyjadison.com>, <ashleyjmadison.com>, <ashleykadison.com>, <ashleykmadison.com>, <ashleymacdison.com>, <ashleymacison.com>, <ashleymad8ison.com>, <ashleymad8son.com>, <ashleymad9ison.com>, <ashleymad9son.com>, <ashleymadieon.com>, <ashleymadieson.com>, <ashleymadis0on.com>, <ashleymadis9n.com>, <ashleymadis9on.com>, <ashleymadision.com>, <ashleymadiskn.com>, <ashleymadiskon.com>, <ashleymadisln.com>, <ashleymadislon.com>, <ashleymadisoh.com>, <ashleymadisohn.com>, <ashleymadisoj.com>, <ashleymadisojn.com>, <ashleymadiwon.com>, <ashleymadiwson.com>, <ashleymadixon.com>, <ashleymadixson.com>, <ashleymadizon.com>, <ashleymadizson.com>, <ashleymadjison.com>, <ashleymadkison.com>, <ashleymaedison.com>, <ashleymaeison.com>, <ashleymardison.com>, <ashleymaxdison.com>, <ashleymaxison.com>, <ashleymjadison.com>, <ashleymkadison.com>, <ashleymqadison.com>, <ashleymqdison.com>, <ashleymwadison.com>, <ashleymwdison.com>, <ashleymzadison.com>, <ashleymzdison.com>, <ashloeymadison.com>, <ashlpeymadison.com>, <ashlseymadison.com>, <ashlsymadison.com>, <ashnleymadison.com>, <ashoeymadison.com>, <asholeymadison.com>, <ashpeymadison.com>, <ashpleymadison.com>, <ashuleymadison.com>, <ashyleymadison.com>, <asnhleymadison.com>, <asnleymadison.com>, <asuhleymadison.com>, <asuleymadison.com>, <aswhleymadison.com>, <asxhleymadison.com>, <asyhleymadison.com>, <asyleymadison.com>, <aszhleymadison.com>, <awhleymadison.com>, <awshleymadison.com>, <axhleymadison.com>, <axshleymadison.com>, <azshleymadison.com>, <qashleymadison.com>, <washleymadison.com>, and <zashleymadison.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Avid Dating Life, Inc., is a provider of internet dating services and adult chat and fantasy encounters that serves individuals seeking discreet relationships. Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its ASHLEY MADISON mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,812,950 issued Feb. 10, 2004).
Respondent registered the <ashleymadision.com> domain name on November 27, 2005. The remaining disputed domain names were registered on May 17, 2009 or May 18, 2009. Respondent’s <ashleymadision.com> and <ashleymadis0on.com> domain names resolve to websites that display third-party links in competition with Complainant. The other ninety-nine disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites.
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. 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its ASHLEY MADISON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,812,950 issued Feb. 10, 2004). See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Complainant argues
that all of Respondent’s disputed domain names contain typographical errors of
its ASHLEY MADISON mark in addition to the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)
“.com.” Complainant asserts that
inserting typos into Complainant’s mark does not distinguish the disputed
domain names from Complainant’s mark.
The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s disputed domains are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s ASHLEY MADISON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) where each disputed domain name contains a misspelled
version of Complainant’s mark and the gTLD “.com.” See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat.
Arb. Forum May 24, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s disputed domain
names were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because the disputed
domain names were common misspellings of the mark involving keys that were
adjacent to the current keys comprising the complainant’s mark); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA
95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and
adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but
nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s
marks); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA
914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a
gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant declares that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it holds rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”). The Panel finds that the Complainant has produced a prima facie case. Due to the Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel, however, will examine the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use its marks. The WHOIS information does not indicate, and there is no further evidence on record, that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and therefore lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Complainant has submitted evidence to show that the <ashleymadis0on.com> and <ashleymadision.com> domain names resolve to websites that display third-party links to websites that are in competition with Complainant in the online adult dating business. Complainant contends that this type of use, presumably for financial gain, is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <ashleymadis0on.com> and <ashleymadision.com> domain names to display third-party links to competitors of Complainant is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not using the <tesco-finance.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by maintaining a web page with misleading links to the complainant’s competitors in the financial services industry); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (concluding that using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to competing websites does not represent 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)).
Complainant alleges that the remaining ninety-nine disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain names is sufficient evidence to show that the disputed domain names are not connected with a bona fide offering or goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark 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 of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name).
Complainant further argues that Respondent is using the
disputed domain names to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s official
<ashleymadison.com> website to Respondent’s websites by using common
misspellings or typos of Complainant’s ASHLEY MADISON mark. Complainant asserts that the use of
typographical errors in the disputed domain names is further evidence of
Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s
registration of the disputed domain names containing misspelled versions of
Complainant’s mark is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and
legitimate interests in the names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain
Registration
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has registered 101 disputed domain names that are confusingly similar, misspelled versions of Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of many trademark infringing domain names within a short period of time is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Miyar, FA 95623 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2000) (finding that registering multiple domain names in a short time frame indicates an intention to prevent the mark holder from using its mark and provides evidence of a pattern of conduct).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the <ashleymadis0on.com> and <ashleymadision.com> domain names
to resolve to websites that display third-party links to websites that are in
competition with Complainant in the online adult dating business is evidence of
bad faith. Complainant contends that
Respondent is diverting Internet users to Complainant’s competitors which
results in a loss of business revenue for Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <ashleymadis0on.com> and <ashleymadision.com> domain names
to divert Internet users to businesses of Complainant’s competitors is further
evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb.
13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to
attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to
the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration
and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see
also
Complainant further contends that Respondent’s use of the <ashleymadis0on.com> and <ashleymadision.com> domain names to display third-party links to competitors of Complainant, where Respondent presumably receives referral fees associated with the links, is further evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <ashleymadis0on.com> and <ashleymadision.com> domain names is further proof of registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Complainant also contends that Respondent’s failure to make
an active use of the ninety-nine other disputed domain names is evidence of bad
faith registration and use in regard to those domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to
make an active use of the disputed domain names is further evidence of bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos.,
Inc. v. Sech, FA
893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007)
(concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name
in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent
registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); see also Pirelli &
C. S.p.A. v.
The Panel has already determined that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting through its registration and use of the disputed domain names that contain misspelled versions of Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of typographical errors in the disputed domain names is evidence in itself of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Tak Ume domains for sale, FA 154528 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name demonstrates a practice commonly referred to as ‘typosquatting.’ This practice diverts Internet users who misspell Complainant’s mark to a website apparently owned by Respondent for Respondent’s commercial gain. ‘Typosquatting’ has been recognized as evidencing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <aehleymadison.com>, <aeshleymadison.com>, <aqshleymadison.com>, <asbhleymadison.com>, <asbleymadison.com>, <asehleymadison.com>, <ashbleymadison.com>, <ashl3eymadison.com>, <ashl3ymadison.com>, <ashl4eymadison.com>, <ashl4ymadison.com>, <ashldeymadison.com>, <ashle3ymadison.com>, <ashle4ymadison.com>, <ashle6madison.com>, <ashle6ymadison.com>, <ashle7madison.com>, <ashle7ymadison.com>, <ashledymadison.com>, <ashlegmadison.com>, <ashlegymadison.com>, <ashlehmadison.com>, <ashlehymadison.com>, <ashlesymadison.com>, <ashley6madison.com>, <ashley7madison.com>, <ashleygmadison.com>, <ashleyhmadison.com>, <ashleyjadison.com>, <ashleyjmadison.com>, <ashleykadison.com>, <ashleykmadison.com>, <ashleymacdison.com>, <ashleymacison.com>, <ashleymad8ison.com>, <ashleymad8son.com>, <ashleymad9ison.com>, <ashleymad9son.com>, <ashleymadieon.com>, <ashleymadieson.com>, <ashleymadis0on.com>, <ashleymadis9n.com>, <ashleymadis9on.com>, <ashleymadision.com>, <ashleymadiskn.com>, <ashleymadiskon.com>, <ashleymadisln.com>, <ashleymadislon.com>, <ashleymadisoh.com>, <ashleymadisohn.com>, <ashleymadisoj.com>, <ashleymadisojn.com>, <ashleymadiwon.com>, <ashleymadiwson.com>, <ashleymadixon.com>, <ashleymadixson.com>, <ashleymadizon.com>, <ashleymadizson.com>, <ashleymadjison.com>, <ashleymadkison.com>, <ashleymaedison.com>, <ashleymaeison.com>, <ashleymardison.com>, <ashleymaxdison.com>, <ashleymaxison.com>, <ashleymjadison.com>, <ashleymkadison.com>, <ashleymqadison.com>, <ashleymqdison.com>, <ashleymwadison.com>, <ashleymwdison.com>, <ashleymzadison.com>, <ashleymzdison.com>, <ashloeymadison.com>, <ashlpeymadison.com>, <ashlseymadison.com>, <ashlsymadison.com>, <ashnleymadison.com>, <ashoeymadison.com>, <asholeymadison.com>, <ashpeymadison.com>, <ashpleymadison.com>, <ashuleymadison.com>, <ashyleymadison.com>, <asnhleymadison.com>, <asnleymadison.com>, <asuhleymadison.com>, <asuleymadison.com>, <aswhleymadison.com>, <asxhleymadison.com>, <asyhleymadison.com>, <asyleymadison.com>, <aszhleymadison.com>, <awhleymadison.com>, <awshleymadison.com>, <axhleymadison.com>, <axshleymadison.com>, <azshleymadison.com>, <qashleymadison.com>, <washleymadison.com>, and <zashleymadison.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: May 13, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum