InfoSpace, Inc. v. TBD Entertainment
Claim
Number: FA0304000153627
Complainant is
InfoSpace, Inc., Bellvue, WA (“Complainant”) represented by
Shannon M. Jost of Stokes Lawrence PS. Respondent is TBD
Entertainment, Tampa, FL (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <wwwinfospace.net> and <inforspace.net>,
registered with Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com.
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 (the "Forum")
electronically on April 3, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 4, 2003.
On
April 3, 2003, Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain names <wwwinfospace.net> and <inforspace.net>
are registered with Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.Com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.Com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.Com 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 10, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
April 30, 2003 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@wwwinfospace.net and postmaster@inforspace.net 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
May 14, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson 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. The domain names registered by
Respondent, <wwwinfospace.net> and <inforspace.net>,
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s INFOSPACE mark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <wwwinfospace.net> and <inforspace.net>
domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwinfospace.net>
and <inforspace.net> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
InfoSpace, Inc., has been using the INFOSPACE trademark since at least 1995 and
holds several trademark registrations for the mark (e.g., U.S. Reg. No. 2,206,397, registered on
December 1, 1998). Complainant has also registered the INFOSPACE mark in over
18 countries worldwide.
Under
the INFOSPACE mark, Complainant provides wireless and Internet software and
application services to global wireless and broadband providers. Complainant
provides directory and listing services offering access to information about
various subjects across the Internet, including the use of online search
engines and computer programs related to the accessing of databases containing
information available on computer networks. Pursuant to its business,
Complainant operates websites at the <infospace.com> and <infospace.net>
domain names.
Both
of the disputed domain names are registered to an entity known as “TBD
Entertainment.” Prior to this dispute, Complainant sent a cease-and-desist
letter to this entity requesting transfer of the domain names. In response to
this letter, TBD Entertainment informed Complainant that it had not registered
the disputed domain names and did not own them.
Looking
at the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names, the Panel notes that
the email address for the administrative and technical contact, the same email
address used by the Registrar to authenticate and communicate with a domain
name Registrant, is info@x2gaem.com. The <x2gaem.com> domain name is
registered to someone going by the name of “Taeho Kim.” Therefore, it appears
that “Taeho Kim,” and not TBD Enterprises, registered the disputed domain
names.
This
“Taeho Kim” has been brought before previous administrative Panels. In one
dispute, he or she was joined as a respondent with an entity known as
“BigDoggie.Net.” In another, he or she represented that entity. The link
between the supposed “real” domain name registrant and “BigDoggie.Net” is an
important one, as Respondent in the present dispute also does business as
“BigDoggie.Net,” leading the Panel to conclude that “Taeho Kim” is either an
alias or an associate of Respondent. Based on these findings, the Panel
determines that despite its protestations to the contrary, Respondent is indeed
the registrant of the disputed domain names.
Respondent
registered the <wwwinfospace.net> and <inforspace.net>
domain names on October 8, 2002, and is not licensed or authorized to use
Complainant’s INFOSPACE mark for any purpose. Respondent uses the disputed
domain names to “mousetrap” Internet users into viewing a series of pop-up
advertisements. Internet users attempting to close the pop-up advertisements
are subsequently subjected to an additional series of advertisements, some of
which promote sexually explicit content.
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.
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 in this proceeding that it has rights in the INFOSPACE mark through
registration of the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
registration of the mark with the appropriate governmental agencies in over 18
additional nations worldwide, and by continuous and widespread use of the mark
in commerce.
The first domain
name registered by Respondent, <wwwinfospace.net>, is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s INFOSPACE
mark. Adding a “www” prefix to a registered mark does not create a distinct
domain name as it typifies exactly the type of abusive registrations that the
UDRP was designed to remedy. See Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v.
S1A, FA 128683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002) (holding confusing similarity
has been established because the prefix "www" does not sufficiently
differentiate the <wwwneimanmarcus.com> domain name from Complainant's
NEIMAN-MARCUS mark); see also Dana Corporation v. $$$ This Domain Name Is
For Sale $$$, FA 117328 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2002) (finding
Respondent's <wwwdana.com> domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant's registered DANA mark because Complainant's mark remains the
dominant feature).
The second
domain name registered by Respondent, <inforspace.net>, is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s INFOSPACE mark. The addition of the letter
“r” to Complainant’s mark does not alleviate any confusing similarity for the
purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See America
Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Mar. 16, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name,
<americanonline.com>, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous
AMERICA ONLINE 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 Complainant’s marks).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the <wwwinfospace.net> and <inforspace.net>
domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s INFOSPACE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant
carries the burden of proving that Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <wwwinfospace.net> and <inforspace.net>
domain names. Complainant can meet this burden by showing that Policy ¶¶
4(c)(i)-(iii) do not apply to Respondent.
See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21,
2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to
Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights
and legitimate interests in the domain name); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin
Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding where a
Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward
with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is
“uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).
Respondent’s use
of the <wwwinfospace.net> and <inforspace.net> domain
names does not evidence a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), as Respondent is merely capitalizing on
misspelled versions of Complainant’s mark to divert Internet traffic. Likewise,
Respondent’s diversionary use of the domain names to profit from pop-up
advertisements is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain
names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See RE/MAX Int’l., Inc. v. Seocho,
FA 142046 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2003) (finding that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwremax.com> domain name as it is
merely using Complainant’s mark to earn profit from pop-up advertisements); see
also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball
Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting as a
means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not
qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods
or services offered at that site”).
Respondent, TBD
Entertainment, is not “commonly known by” the disputed domain names, and cannot
rely upon Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) to evidence rights or legitimate interests in the
domain names. See Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6,
2003) (“Considering the nonsensical nature of the [<wwwmedline.com>]
domain name and its similarity to Complainant’s registered and distinctive
[MEDLINE] mark, the Panel concludes that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to
Respondent”); see also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS
information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain
name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwinfospace.net>
and <inforspace.net> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
While Policy
paragraph 4(b) lists four examples of bad faith use and registration of a
domain name, this list merely illustrates possible circumstances evidencing bad
faith. In this dispute, the Panel will look to the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the registration and use of the disputed domain names
in determining if Respondent acted in bad faith. See Do The Hustle, LLC v.
Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“the examples [of bad faith]
in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive”); see
also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in
determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must
look at the “totality of circumstances”).
The UDRP was designed to remedy circumstances of abusive registration of
a domain name and Respondent typosquatted when it registered the <wwwinfospace.net> and <inforspace.net> domain
names. This supports findings of bad faith. Merely adding a “www” prefix to
Complainant’s mark or misspelling Complainant’s mark permits the Panel to infer
that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights in the INFOSPACE mark when it
registered the disputed domain names. Such registration with actual knowledge
of a trademark holder’s rights evidences bad faith registration of the domain
names. Capitalizing on the goodwill surrounding Complainant’s mark to profit
from pop-up advertisements unrelated to Complainant’s business dilutes
Complainant’s mark and constitutes bad faith use of the domain names. See Black
& Decker Corp. v. Azra Khan, FA 137223
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name
was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period
after the “www” portion of [a] web-address,” evidence that the domain name was
registered and used in bad faith); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini,
D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling
of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended
destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of
itself evidence of bad faith”); see also Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8,
2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent attracted users to
advertisements).
The Panel thus
finds that Respondent registered and used the <wwwinfospace.net>
and <inforspace.net> domain names in bad faith, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <wwwinfospace.net> and <inforspace.net>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: May 28, 2003.
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page