Time Warner Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy aka Host Master
Claim Number: FA1410001585358
Complainant is Time Warner Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis of Arent Fox LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Above.com Domain Privacy aka Host Master (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <timrwarner.com>, <timewaener.com>, <timewaqrnercable.com>, <timewarber.com>, <timewarder.com>, <timewarmner.com>, <timewarnercableemployment.com>, <timewarnercablenyandnj.com>, <timewarnercacle.com>, <timewarnercanle.com>, <timewarnerchannels.com>, <timewarnercny.com>, <timewarnermilwaukee.com>, <timewarnerpaybill.com>, <timewarnerpayment.com>, <timewarnwr.com>, <timewarren.com>, <timewiwer.com>, <timewoarnercable.com>, <timeworner.com>, <timewornercable.com>, <timewsrner.com>, <comtimewarnercable.com>, <myservicestimewarner.com>, <myservicetimewarnercable.com>, <hboschedule.com>, <hboshows.com>, <hbostore.com>, <gameofthronesonline.net>, <iwatchgameofthornes.net>, <freetrueblood.com>, <iwatchtrueblood.com>, <trueblood2010.com>, <truebloodepisode.com>, <truebloodonlineepisodes.com>, <truebloodseason5.com>, <iwarnerbros.com>, <warnerbrosgames.com>, <dccomicsgames.com>, and <scoobydoostore.com>, registered with Above.Com Pty Ltd.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 17, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 17, 2014.
On October 20, 2014 through October 26, 2014, Above.Com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <timrwarner.com>, <timewaener.com>, <timewaqrnercable.com>, <timewarber.com>, <timewarder.com>, <timewarmner.com>, <timewarnercableemployment.com>, <timewarnercablenyandnj.com>, <timewarnercacle.com>, <timewarnercanle.com>, <timewarnerchannels.com>, <timewarnercny.com>, <timewarnermilwaukee.com>, <timewarnerpaybill.com>, <timewarnerpayment.com>, <timewarnwr.com>, <timewarren.com>, <timewiwer.com>, <timewoarnercable.com>, <timeworner.com>, <timewornercable.com>, <timewsrner.com>, <comtimewarnercable.com>, <myservicestimewarner.com>, <myservicetimewarnercable.com>, <hboschedule.com>, <hboshows.com>, <hbostore.com>, <gameofthronesonline.net>, <iwatchgameofthornes.net>, <freetrueblood.com>, <iwatchtrueblood.com>, <trueblood2010.com>, <truebloodepisode.com>, <truebloodonlineepisodes.com>, <truebloodseason5.com>, <iwarnerbros.com>, <warnerbrosgames.com>, <dccomicsgames.com>, and <scoobydoostore.com> domain names are registered with Above.Com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Above.Com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.Com Pty Ltd. 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 October 30, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 19, 2014 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@timrwarner.com, postmaster@timewaener.com, postmaster@timewaqrnercable.com, postmaster@timewarber.com, postmaster@timewarder.com, postmaster@timewarmner.com, postmaster@timewarnercableemployment.com, postmaster@timewarnercablenyandnj.com, postmaster@timewarnercacle.com, postmaster@timewarnercanle.com, postmaster@timewarnerchannels.com, postmaster@timewarnercny.com, postmaster@timewarnermilwaukee.com, postmaster@timewarnerpaybill.com, postmaster@timewarnerpayment.com, postmaster@timewarnwr.com, postmaster@timewarren.com, postmaster@timewiwer.com, postmaster@timewoarnercable.com, postmaster@timeworner.com, postmaster@timewornercable.com, postmaster@timewsrner.com, postmaster@comtimewarnercable.com, postmaster@myservicestimewarner.com, postmaster@myservicetimewarnercable.com, postmaster@hboschedule.com, postmaster@hboshows.com, postmaster@hbostore.com, postmaster@gameofthronesonline.net, postmaster@iwatchgameofthornes.net, postmaster@freetrueblood.com, postmaster@iwatchtrueblood.com, postmaster@trueblood2010.com, postmaster@truebloodepisode.com, postmaster@truebloodonlineepisodes.com, postmaster@truebloodseason5.com, postmaster@iwarnerbros.com, postmaster@warnerbrosgames.com, postmaster@dccomicsgames.com, and postmaster@scoobydoostore.com. Also on October 30, 2014, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 November 25, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Complainant Time Warner Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively “Time Warner”) owns all rights, title and interest in and to a family of marks that incorporate, in whole or in part, TIME WARNER, TIME WARNER CABLE, HBO, GAME OF THRONES, TRUE BLOOD, WARNER BROS., DC COMICS and SCOOBY-DOO (the “TIME WARNER Marks”), including, but not limited to, the following United States federal trademark registrations:
- TIME WARNER (U.S. trademark Reg. No. 1,816,474, issued on January 11, 1994, for cable television broadcasting services);
- TIME WARNER (U.S. trademark Reg. No. 1,940,977, issued on December 12, 1995, for prerecorded audio cassette tapes featuring the arts, literature, lifestyles, fitness, music, and topics of general interest);
- TIME WARNER CABLE (U.S. trademark Reg. No. 3,972,845, issued on June 7, 2011, for a variety of advertising and business services);
- TIME WARNER CABLE and Design (U.S. trademark Reg. No. 2,775,146, issued on October 21, 2003, for cable television broadcasting services; broadcast and telecommunications services provided via a cable platform, namely, analog and digital video, cable modem service, interactive television, television on demand, personal video recording, telephony and related services; entertainment services in the nature of television programs and motion pictures; television programming services; pay per view and pay television subscription services);
- TIME WARNER CENTER (U.S. trademark Reg. No. 2,971,049, issued on July 19, 2005, for real estate management and leasing services for commercial and business offices, retail shopping facilities, restaurants, cultural, educational, entertainment and broadcast facilities);
- HBO (U.S. trademark Reg. No. 1,020,101, issued on September 9, 1975, for supplying and distributing programs to cable television and/or master antenna systems);
- GAME OF THRONES (U.S. trademark Reg. No. 3,986,288, issued on June 28, 2011, for entertainment services in the nature of an ongoing television series featuring drama, action and adventure; interactive online entertainment in the nature of a website containing photographic, video and prose presentations, related film clips and other multimedia materials featuring an ongoing television series drama, action and adventure).
- TRUE BLOOD (U.S. trademark Reg. No. 3,531,720, issued on November 11, 2008, for entertainment services in the nature of an ongoing dramatic television series);
- WARNER BROS (U.S. trademark Reg. No. 1,026,466, issued on December 2, 1975, for providing film and tape entertainment for viewing through the media of television and cinema);
- DC COMICS (U.S. trademark Reg. No 2,051,606, issued on April 8, 1997, for providing multiple-user access to a global computer information network for the transfer and dissemination of a wide range of information); and
- SCOOBY-DOO (U.S. trademark Reg. No. 2,618,231, issued on September 10, 2002, for adhesive plastic and cloth bandages for skin wounds, and vitamin and mineral supplements).
See also, e.g., Time Warner, Inc. v. Alvaro Collazo, NAF Claim No. FA0410000338464.
2. Time Warner owns and uses “TIMEWARNER.COM” “HBO.COM” “WARNERBROS.COM” “DCCOMICS.COM” and “SCOOBYDOO.COM” in connection with providing a wide variety of services on the Internet. Time Warner promotes the TRUE BLOOD and GAME OF THRONES series at the HBO website. In addition, Time Warner licenses Time Warner Cable Inc. to use the name and trademark TIME WARNER CABLE and “TIMEWARNERCABLE.COM” to provide cable, telecommunications and related services. The TIME WARNER Marks are used extensively throughout Time Warner’s Web sites, which are a significant method of promoting Time Warner and its services. As a result, consumers associate the TIME WARNER Marks, when used in domain names, trademarks and on the Internet, with Time Warner’s products and services.
3. Long before Respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain names at issue in this Complaint (the “Disputed Domains”), Time Warner adopted and began using the TIME WARNER Marks in connection with, among other things, a wide variety of goods and services, including cable television, entertainment, and online services. The distinctive TIME WARNER Marks are used and promoted over the Internet and through traditional media. Time Warner and/or its licensees have used and continue to use the famous and distinctive TIME WARNER Marks continuously and extensively in interstate commerce in connection with the advertising and sale of a wide variety of goods and services.
4. Time Warner is a leading media and entertainment company, whose businesses include interactive services, filmed entertainment, animation and television networks. The company has invested substantial sums of money developing, marketing and delivering high-quality content worldwide through multiple distribution outlets.
5. Time Warner is ranked No. 102 in the 2014 edition of the Fortune 500 rankings. Each day its services are accessed and utilized by millions of subscribers and users around the world.
6. The TIME WARNER Marks have been and continue to be widely publicized through substantial advertising. Many millions of dollars have been spent in connection with such advertising, which has been disseminated through network and cable television programs, radio broadcasts, and in print media including newspapers and periodicals.
7. Sales under the TIME WARNER Marks have been substantial. The general public has come to associate the TIME WARNER Marks with products and services of a high and uniform quality.
8. Because of these substantial advertising expenditures and sales, the distinctive TIME WARNER Marks have become famous among members of the purchasing public.
9. Long after Time Warner’s and its predecessors-in-interests’ adoption and first use of the TIME WARNER Marks, Respondent registered the Disputed Domains with a bad faith intent to profit from the registration and use of the domain names. Respondent’s actions are a clear and blatant violation of Time Warner’s intellectual property rights, and part of a substantial pattern of cybersquatting. Respondent’s bad faith actions demonstrate an utter disregard and contempt for Time Warner’s legal rights and ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
10. The Disputed Domains are nearly identical and confusingly similar to the TIME WARNER Marks. Consumer confusion is particularly likely because each of the domain names is a common misspelling of the TIME WARNER Marks or merely adds descriptive terms to the TIME WARNER Marks, and Respondent is using the Disputed Domains with commercial Web sites that promote many of Time Warner’s competitors’ services.
11. Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domains with a bad faith intent to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the TIME WARNER Marks.
12. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domains. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the TIME WARNER Marks, and Respondent is not named or commonly known as the TIME WARNER Marks. The following is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domains:
(a) Respondent’s bad faith registration of the Disputed Domains is evidenced by the fact that Respondent registered each of the infringing domain names after the TIME WARNER Marks were famous and/or registered. See the Whois Records and compare to first use and filing dates of the TIME WARNER Marks trademark registrations. Respondent is deemed to at least have had constructive knowledge of Time Warner’s rights in its TIME WARNER Marks by virtue of the federal trademark registrations that were in existence when Respondent registered the Disputed Domains. See Time Warner, Inc. v. Erik Little, NAF FA0504000464815 (recognizing the federal trademark registrations for SPORTS ILLUSTRATED and finding bad faith registrations of Sports Illustrated-based domain names). Given Time Warner’s global reputation and the fact that the Disputed Domains correlate to Time Warner and its services, it is inconceivable that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Time Warner when the Disputed Domains were registered. Respondent therefore registered the Disputed Domains in bad faith in violation of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP. Indeed, as shown in more detail below, Respondent is a recidivist cybersquatter that has infringed on Time Warner’s trademarks in the past.
(b) Respondent’s bad faith use of the Disputed Domains is shown by the commercial Web sites associated with the domain names. Specifically, Respondent has used, and continues to use, the Disputed Domains with commercial Web sites that include links to third party sites that, in many cases, promote services that compete with Time Warner and its licensee, Time Warner Cable. Id. This commercial use of the domain names is likely to confuse and mislead consumers and violates Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
(c) Respondent’s bad faith intent is further demonstrated by Respondent’s substantial pattern of cybersquatting. In addition to the domain names at issue in this dispute, Respondent has been ordered to transfer infringing domain names in dozens, if not more than 100, other UDRP disputes. Notably, Time Warner prevailed in a UDRP dispute against Respondent earlier this year. Time Warner Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Host Master, Claim Number: FA1311001531329 (Jan. 7, 2014). By engaging in such a prolific pattern of cybersquatting Respondent has violated Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the UDRP.
(d) Respondent’s bad faith is further demonstrated by his use of a privacy service to shield his true identity. Use of a privacy service to conceal a registrant’s identity is further evidence of bad faith under the UDRP. National Cable Satellite Corporation d/b/a C-SPAN v. New Media Nexus c/o Lyle, Rumble, NAF Case FA0811001236010 (Jan. 26, 2009) (“The Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by utilizing a proxy service to conceal its true identity.”) See also Spin Master Ltd. v DCSTEAM INC., NAF Case FA1210515 (Aug. 5, 2008) (“Respondent had originally registered <moonsandkits.com> under the name ‘Domains By Proxy, Inc.,’ a company which provides the services of concealing registrant information. The Respondent had clearly gone to great lengths to hide its identity. The Panel therefore finds that this concealment of the Respondent’s true identity was indicative of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy 4(a)(ii).”). Here, Respondent’s use of a privacy service to hide his identity is evidence of his bad faith intent to profit off the infringing domain name.
(e) Based upon (1) the fame of the TIME WARNER Marks; (2) Time Warner’s federal trademark registrations; (3) Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domains with commercial Web sites that promote Time Warner and its competitors; and (4) Respondent’s significant pattern of cybersquatting, including cybersquatting on Time Warner’s trademarks, Respondent cannot in good faith claim that he had no knowledge of Time Warner’s rights in its famous TIME WARNER Marks. Furthermore, Respondent cannot claim in good faith that he made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the subject domain names, or that Respondent is commonly known as the TIME WARNER Marks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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.
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 Complainant prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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.”).
Complainant claims rights in the marks at issue through registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Specifically, Complainant has registrations for TIME WARNER (Reg. No. 1,816,474 registered Jan. 11, 1994), TIME WARNER CABLE (Reg. No. 3,972,845, registered June 7, 2011), HBO (Reg. No. 1,020,101, registered Sept. 9, 1975), GAME OF THRONES (Reg. No. 3,986,288, registered June 28, 2011), TRUE BLOOD (Reg. No. 3,531,720, registered Nov. 11, 2008), WARNER BROS (Reg. No. 1,026,466 registered Dec. 2, 1975), DC COMICS (Reg. No. 2,051,606, registered April 8 1997), SCOOBY-DOO (Reg. No. 2,618,231, registered Sept. 10, 2002). Complainant uses these marks in connection with media and entertainment offerings, including filmed entertainment, animation, and television shows and networks. At this stage of the Proceeding, Complainant need only prove it has some rights somewhere, not that Complainant’s rights are superior to Respondent’s rights. Complainant’s USPTO registrations satisfactorily evidence the required Policy ¶4(a)(i) rights in the marks. See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Song Bin, FA 1505218 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 30, 2013) (“Complainant’s USPTO registration sufficiently establishes its rights in the HOME DEPOT mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i), despite the fact Respondent resides outside of the United States.”).
Complainant claims the disputed domains are confusingly similar to its marks because the names incorporate the mark or a misspelled version of the mark and/or adds related descriptive terms to the marks. The domain names also differ from the incorporated marks by adding a generic top-level domain (required by domain name syntax), by the omitting spaces or hyphens (in some instances), and the adding geographically descriptive terms. Prior UDRP panels have consistently found such minor alterations insufficient to distinguish the resulting domain name from the incorporated marks. See, e.g., Am. Online, Inc. v. David, FA 104980 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (“The misspelling of a famous mark does not diminish the confusingly similar nature between the marks and the disputed domain names.”); Google Inc. v. N/A/ k gautam, FA 1524232 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2013) (finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark, the addition of a generic term, and the addition of a generic top-level domain); Google Inc. v. Private Person / Andrey Skorodubov, FA 1506184 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jul. 28, 2013) (finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark regardless of the omission of a letter and spaces in the mark and the addition of hyphens, a descriptive term, and a gTLD). This Panel agrees. Respondent’s domain names are confusing similar to Complainant’s marks under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has 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 claims Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent’s WHOIS information (“Above.com Domain Privacy aka Host Master”) bears no relationship to any of the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the marks at issue. In Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006), the panel concluded 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 the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark. There is no evidence in this Proceeding to find Respondent is commonly known by these disputed domain names under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name with parking pages that promote many of Complainant’s competitor’s services. The parking pages display links such as “Best Cable and Internet Deals,” “Satellite TV” and “Hulu Plus” and “Watch Movies.” Presumably, Respondent generates revenue from the links and advertisements promoted at the parking pages (or at least free parking). Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s own commercial hyperlink pages amounts to 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). See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (holding that the respondent had not demonstrated a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use when “the website resolving from the disputed domain name displays links to travel products and services, which directly compete with Complainant’s business”); Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names using a privacy service. This means Respondent did not acquire any rights to the domain names simply by registering them because Respondent does not publicly associate itself with the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent has engaged in a clear pattern of cybersquatting, as evidenced by prior UDRP decisions adverse to Respondent. While this has a simplistic logic to it, the Panel is not persuaded. To agree with Complainant would undermine the integrity of the UDRP process. Each registrant is entitled to have its case determined on the merits. Some registrants will have a weak case and their next case may be a strong case. There is no reason to penalize them because their last case was a weak (or losing case). A privacy service will be a more frequent respondent in a UDRP proceeding even if only because 15% of all domain names are registered using a privacy service (it should be noted this Respondent is a privacy service). Just because a registrant is a privacy service does not mean it should automatically lose. That would be grossly unfair and has no basis in the UDRP.
This Panel has adopted a rebuttable presumption that a domain name registered using a privacy service was registered and used in bad faith in a commercial context. This is a rebuttable presumption, which means a Respondent may overcome it. It does not apply in personal or political contexts, where this Panel can see a genuine need for anonymity. This case is a commercial case. Respondent has done nothing to rebut the presumption. Therefore, this Panel finds bad faith registration and use based upon this fact alone.
Respondent has used the disputed domain names with parking pages including links to third-party sites, many of which promote Complainant’s competitors and thereby disrupts Complainant’s business. The disputed domain names resolve to “Best Cable and Internet Deals,” “Satellite TV” and “Hulu Plus” and “Watch Movies.” This is adequate evidence of Respondent’s bad faith use and registration pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (“The disputed domain names resolve to websites that list links to competitors of Complainant, evidence that Respondent intends to disrupt Complainant’s business, a further indication of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant claims Respondent is attempting to mislead Internet users for its own commercial interest in violation of Policy ¶4(b)(iv). The disputed domain names resolve to parking pages with links both unrelated and related to Complainant. The domain names create an opportunity for Respondent to profit from a likelihood of confusion, in violation of Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <timrwarner.com>, <timewaener.com>, <timewaqrnercable.com>, <timewarber.com>, <timewarder.com>, <timewarmner.com>, <timewarnercableemployment.com>, <timewarnercablenyandnj.com>, <timewarnercacle.com>, <timewarnercanle.com>, <timewarnerchannels.com>, <timewarnercny.com>, <timewarnermilwaukee.com>, <timewarnerpaybill.com>, <timewarnerpayment.com>, <timewarnwr.com>, <timewarren.com>, <timewiwer.com>, <timewoarnercable.com>, <timeworner.com>, <timewornercable.com>, <timewsrner.com>, <comtimewarnercable.com>, <myservicestimewarner.com>, <myservicetimewarnercable.com>, <hboschedule.com>, <hboshows.com>, <hbostore.com>, <gameofthronesonline.net>, <iwatchgameofthornes.net>, <freetrueblood.com>, <iwatchtrueblood.com>, <trueblood2010.com>, <truebloodepisode.com>, <truebloodonlineepisodes.com>, <truebloodseason5.com>, <iwarnerbros.com>, <warnerbrosgames.com>, <dccomicsgames.com>, and <scoobydoostore.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page