Microsoft Corporation v. abd naseeir
Claim Number: FA1203001434828
Complainant is Microsoft Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is abd naseeir (“Respondent”), Saudi Arabia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ageofempires-microsoft.info>, <encarta-microsoft.info>, <internetexplorer-microsoft.info>, <microsoftaccess-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexcel-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexchange-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2007-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2010-microsoft.info>, <microsoftproject-microsoft.info>, <microsoftsqlserver-microsoft.info>, <microsoftstudent-microsoft.info>, <microsoftwindows-microsoft.info>, <microsoftword-microsoft.info>, <microsoftworks-microsoft.info>, <sqlserver2005-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio2010-microsoft.info>, <windows-7-microsoft.info>, <windows2000-microsoft.info>, <windows7ultimate-microsoft.info>, <windows8-microsoft.info>, <windows98-microsoft.info>, <windowslivemessenger-microsoft.info>, <windowsme-microsoft.info>, <windowsmediaplayer-microsoft.info>, <windowsmobile-microsoft.info>, <windowsphone-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2003-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2008-microsoft.info>, <windowsvista-microsoft.info>, and <windowsxp-microsoft.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 15, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 15, 2012.
On March 16, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ageofempires-microsoft.info>, <encarta-microsoft.info>, <internetexplorer-microsoft.info>, <microsoftaccess-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexcel-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexchange-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2007-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2010-microsoft.info>, <microsoftproject-microsoft.info>, <microsoftsqlserver-microsoft.info>, <microsoftstudent-microsoft.info>, <microsoftwindows-microsoft.info>, <microsoftword-microsoft.info>, <microsoftworks-microsoft.info>, <sqlserver2005-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio2010-microsoft.info>, <windows-7-microsoft.info>, <windows2000-microsoft.info>, <windows7ultimate-microsoft.info>, <windows8-microsoft.info>, <windows98-microsoft.info>, <windowslivemessenger-microsoft.info>, <windowsme-microsoft.info>, <windowsmediaplayer-microsoft.info>, <windowsmobile-microsoft.info>, <windowsphone-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2003-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2008-microsoft.info>, <windowsvista-microsoft.info>, and <windowsxp-microsoft.info> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 20, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 9, 2012 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@ageofempires-microsoft.info, postmaster@encarta-microsoft.info, postmaster@internetexplorer-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftaccess-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftexcel-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftexchange-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftoffice-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftoffice2007-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftoffice2010-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftproject-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftsqlserver-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftstudent-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftwindows-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftword-microsoft.info, postmaster@microsoftworks-microsoft.info, postmaster@sqlserver2005-microsoft.info, postmaster@visualstudio-microsoft.info, postmaster@visualstudio2010-microsoft.info, postmaster@windows-7-microsoft.info, postmaster@windows2000-microsoft.info, postmaster@windows7ultimate-microsoft.info, postmaster@windows8-microsoft.info, postmaster@windows98-microsoft.info, postmaster@windowslivemessenger-microsoft.info, postmaster@windowsme-microsoft.info, postmaster@windowsmediaplayer-microsoft.info, postmaster@windowsmobile-microsoft.info, postmaster@windowsphone-microsoft.info, postmaster@windowsserver-microsoft.info, postmaster@windowsserver2003-microsoft.info, postmaster@windowsserver2008-microsoft.info, postmaster@windowsvista-microsoft.info, and postmaster@windowsxp-microsoft.info. Also on March 20, 2012, 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 April 19, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 <ageofempires-microsoft.info>, <encarta-microsoft.info>, <internetexplorer-microsoft.info>, <microsoftaccess-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexcel-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexchange-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2007-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2010-microsoft.info>, <microsoftproject-microsoft.info>, <microsoftsqlserver-microsoft.info>, <microsoftstudent-microsoft.info>, <microsoftwindows-microsoft.info>, <microsoftword-microsoft.info>, <microsoftworks-microsoft.info>, <sqlserver2005-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio2010-microsoft.info>, <windows-7-microsoft.info>, <windows2000-microsoft.info>, <windows7ultimate-microsoft.info>, <windows8-microsoft.info>, <windows98-microsoft.info>, <windowslivemessenger-microsoft.info>, <windowsme-microsoft.info>, <windowsmediaplayer-microsoft.info>, <windowsmobile-microsoft.info>, <windowsphone-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2003-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2008-microsoft.info>, <windowsvista-microsoft.info>, and <windowsxp-microsoft.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ageofempires-microsoft.info>, <encarta-microsoft.info>, <internetexplorer-microsoft.info>, <microsoftaccess-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexcel-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexchange-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2007-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2010-microsoft.info>, <microsoftproject-microsoft.info>, <microsoftsqlserver-microsoft.info>, <microsoftstudent-microsoft.info>, <microsoftwindows-microsoft.info>, <microsoftword-microsoft.info>, <microsoftworks-microsoft.info>, <sqlserver2005-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio2010-microsoft.info>, <windows-7-microsoft.info>, <windows2000-microsoft.info>, <windows7ultimate-microsoft.info>, <windows8-microsoft.info>, <windows98-microsoft.info>, <windowslivemessenger-microsoft.info>, <windowsme-microsoft.info>, <windowsmediaplayer-microsoft.info>, <windowsmobile-microsoft.info>, <windowsphone-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2003-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2008-microsoft.info>, <windowsvista-microsoft.info>, and <windowsxp-microsoft.info> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <ageofempires-microsoft.info>, <encarta-microsoft.info>, <internetexplorer-microsoft.info>, <microsoftaccess-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexcel-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexchange-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2007-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2010-microsoft.info>, <microsoftproject-microsoft.info>, <microsoftsqlserver-microsoft.info>, <microsoftstudent-microsoft.info>, <microsoftwindows-microsoft.info>, <microsoftword-microsoft.info>, <microsoftworks-microsoft.info>, <sqlserver2005-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio2010-microsoft.info>, <windows-7-microsoft.info>, <windows2000-microsoft.info>, <windows7ultimate-microsoft.info>, <windows8-microsoft.info>, <windows98-microsoft.info>, <windowslivemessenger-microsoft.info>, <windowsme-microsoft.info>, <windowsmediaplayer-microsoft.info>, <windowsmobile-microsoft.info>, <windowsphone-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2003-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2008-microsoft.info>, <windowsvista-microsoft.info>, and <windowsxp-microsoft.info> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its MICROSOFT (e.g., Reg. No. 1,685,083 registered May 5, 1992) and WINDOWS marks (e.g., Reg. No. 2,212,784 registered on December 22, 1998). Complainant also owns trademark registrations for its MICROSOFT (e.g., Reg. No. 363/7 registered December 16,1995) and WINDOWS marks (e.g., Reg. No. 288/21 registered July 18, 1993) with the Saudi Arabia Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Trade Mark Section (“SAMCI”).
Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites containing links to third parties not affiliated with Complainant, including sites that promote Complainant’s competitors.
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."
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.
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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT and WINDOWS marks pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i) through its registration of the marks with the USPTO and the SAMCI. See Hewlett-Packard Dev. Co., L.P. v. Wu Wenbing, FA 1294944 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2009) (“The Panel finds Complainant has sufficiently established rights in the HP mark . . . through its numerous registrations with many governmental trademark authorities . . . including the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China . . . and the United States Patent and Trademark Office . . .”); see also Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO).
Respondent’s <ageofempires-microsoft.info>, <encarta-microsoft.info>, <internetexplorer-microsoft.info>, <microsoftaccess-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexcel-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexchange-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2007-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2010-microsoft.info>, <microsoftproject-microsoft.info>, <microsoftsqlserver-microsoft.info>, <microsoftstudent-microsoft.info>, <microsoftwindows-microsoft.info>, <microsoftword-microsoft.info>, <microsoftworks-microsoft.info>, <sqlserver2005-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio2010-microsoft.info>, <windows-7-microsoft.info>, <windows2000-microsoft.info>, <windows7ultimate-microsoft.info>, <windows8-microsoft.info>, <windows98-microsoft.info>, <windowslivemessenger-microsoft.info>, <windowsme-microsoft.info>, <windowsmediaplayer-microsoft.info>, <windowsmobile-microsoft.info>, <windowsphone-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2003-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2008-microsoft.info>, <windowsvista-microsoft.info>, and <windowsxp-microsoft.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark. Each disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adding only one or more hyphens, a product version number or descriptive edition name, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.info.” Some of the disputed domain names combine Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark and WINDOWS marks. These alterations are insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”); see also Teradyne, Inc. v. 4Tel Tech., D2000-0026 (WIPO May 9, 2000) (finding that the “addition of a hyphen to the registered mark is an insubstantial change. Both the mark and the domain name would be pronounced in the identical fashion, by eliminating the hyphen"); see also Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc., D2002-0095 (WIPO May 7, 2002) (finding that several domain names incorporating the complainant’s entire EXPERIAN mark and merely adding the term “credit” were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark); see also Nintendo of Am. Inc. v. Pokemon, D2000-1230 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where respondent combined the complainant’s POKEMON and PIKACHU marks to form the <pokemonpikachu.com> domain name); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that adding the suffixes "502" and "520" to the ICQ trademark does little to reduce the potential for confusion).
Respondent’s <windows-7-microsoft.info>, <windows2000-microsoft.info>, <windows7ultimate-microsoft.info>, <windows8-microsoft.info>, <windows98-microsoft.info>, <windowslivemessenger-microsoft.info>, <windowsme-microsoft.info>, <windowsmediaplayer-microsoft.info>, <windowsmobile-microsoft.info>, <windowsphone-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2003-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2008-microsoft.info>, <windowsvista-microsoft.info>, and <windowsxp-microsoft.info> domain names are also confusingly similar to Complainant’s WINDOWS mark, for the same reasons noted above. See Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”); see also Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Apr. 12, 2007) (finding that the addition of a hyphen between terms of a registered mark did not differentiate the <p-zero.org> domain name from the P ZERO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied); see also Omnitel Pronto Italia S.p.A. v. Bella, D2000-1641 (WIPO Mar. 12, 2001) (finding that the contested <omnitel2000.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OMNITEL trademark).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interest in all of the disputed domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant’s MICROSOFT or WINDOWS marks. Complainant also asserts that the WHOIS information suggests Respondent is known as an entity other than the trademark associated with Complainant. Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Foot Locker Retail, Inc. v. Gibson, FA 139693 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 4, 2003) (“Due to the fame of Complainant’s FOOT LOCKER family of marks . . . and the fact that Respondent’s WHOIS information reveals its name to be ‘Bruce Gibson,’ the Panel infers that Respondent was not ‘commonly known by’ any of the disputed domain names prior to their registration, and concludes that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent.”); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to resolve to elaborate pay-per-click sites that prominently display Complainant’s marks in their titles and banners. According to Complainant, the sites also link to third parties promoting goods and services which, in many cases, compete with Complainant’s goods and services. Among the products promoted, Complainant claims, are programs that purport to generate keys or cracks to unlock Complainant’s products. Complainant argues that each of Respondent’s sites also features a “stores” section that seeks affiliate revenue through sales of Complainant’s goods as well as third-party goods. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s resolving websites, used to promote Complainant’s competitors, do not reflect a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Nike, Inc. v. Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services where the respondent used the complainant’s mark without authorization to attract Internet users to its website, which offered both the complainant’s products and those of the complainant’s competitors); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Power of Choice Holding Co., FA 621292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of domain names confusingly similar to the complainant’s WAL-MART mark to divert Internet users seeking the complainant’s goods and services to websites competing with the complainant did not constitute 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)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names indicates a pattern of bad faith conduct in violation of Policy ¶4(b)(ii). Respondent registered at least thirty-three domain names that incorporate Complainant’s famous marks. This constitutes 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).
Respondent uses the disputed domain names to resolve to websites containing links to third parties not affiliated with Complainant, including sites that promote Complainant’s competitors, from which Respondent no doubt receives revenue. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to feature pay-per-click links for competing products disrupts Complainant’s business and thus constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark through its confusingly similar domain names, thereby misleading Internet users and diverting Internet traffic to the resolving website for commercial gain. The Panel therefore also finds that Respondent has registered and is using the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Asbury Auto. Group, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 958542 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant’s business would likely lead to confusion among Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships, and was therefore evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)), see also AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes).
Complainant also contends that, in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's MICROSOFT and WINDOWS marks, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain names without actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the marks. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain names, additional evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds that Complainant has 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 <ageofempires-microsoft.info>, <encarta-microsoft.info>, <internetexplorer-microsoft.info>, <microsoftaccess-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexcel-microsoft.info>, <microsoftexchange-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2007-microsoft.info>, <microsoftoffice2010-microsoft.info>, <microsoftproject-microsoft.info>, <microsoftsqlserver-microsoft.info>, <microsoftstudent-microsoft.info>, <microsoftwindows-microsoft.info>, <microsoftword-microsoft.info>, <microsoftworks-microsoft.info>, <sqlserver2005-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio-microsoft.info>, <visualstudio2010-microsoft.info>, <windows-7-microsoft.info>, <windows2000-microsoft.info>, <windows7ultimate-microsoft.info>, <windows8-microsoft.info>, <windows98-microsoft.info>, <windowslivemessenger-microsoft.info>, <windowsme-microsoft.info>, <windowsmediaplayer-microsoft.info>, <windowsmobile-microsoft.info>, <windowsphone-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2003-microsoft.info>, <windowsserver2008-microsoft.info>, <windowsvista-microsoft.info>, and <windowsxp-microsoft.info>, domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 26, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page