Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Company v. Albert Jackson
Claim
Number: FA0307000170518
Complainant is Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Company, Springfield, MA (“Complainant”) represented by Merton E. Thompson of Fish & Richardson P.C.
Respondent is Albert Jackson,
George Town, Grand Cayman, Caymen Islands, British West Indies (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <wwwmassmutual.com>, 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 July 18, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on July 23, 2003.
On
July 29, 2003, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <wwwmassmutual.com> is
registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent
is the current registrant of the name. Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.com 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
August 4, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
August 25, 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@wwwmassmutual.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
September 3, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. The domain name registered by Respondent,
<wwwmassmutual.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MASS
MUTUAL mark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <wwwmassmutual.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwmassmutual.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (“MassMutual”), holds United States
Patent and Trademark Registration No. 990,411 (registered on August 6, 1974)
and Registration No. 1,615,151 (registered on September 25, 1990) for the MASS
MUTUAL mark.
Complainant is a
global financial services organization with more than 1200 offices and 10
million clients worldwide. Complainant
uses the MASS MUTUAL mark both as its official company logo and in association
with a wide range of financial services, including retirement insurance and
investment services. Complainant also
uses the MASS MUTUAL mark in the <massmutual.com> domain name that hosts
a website, which lists Complainant’s products and services.
Respondent
registered the <wwwmassmutual.com> domain name on May 25,
2003. Respondent is using the <wwwmassmutual.com>
domain name to direct Internet users to a generic portal page with links to a
variety of gambling and shopping websites.
The website located at the <wwwmassmutual.com> domain name
also offers targeted financial service advertisements and pop-up advertisements
for financial services that are unrelated to Complainant.
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.
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 has
established in this proceeding that it has rights in the MASS MUTUAL mark
through registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v.
Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark
law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive
and have acquired secondary meaning”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5,
2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which
creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this
assumption).
Respondent’s <wwwmassmutual.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MASS MUTUAL mark. Respondent is using a typographical error
that is common among Internet users where they omit the “dot” between “www” and
“MASS MUTUAL” in the disputed domain name.
The lack of a period between the “www” and Complainant’s mark is
insufficient to distinguish the <wwwmassmutual.com> domain name
from Complainant’s MASS MUTUAL mark. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1,
2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA
because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between
the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the
Internet”); see also Marie Claire Album v. Blakely, D2002-1015 (WIPO
Dec. 23, 2002) (holding that the letters "www" are not distinct in
the "Internet world" and thus Respondent 's
<wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's
MARIE CLAIRE trademark).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has
show that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained
within the domain name that Respondent registered. In this proceeding, Respondent has not submitted a Response to
the Panel and thus has failed to set forth any circumstances under which it
could have rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwmassmutual.com>
domain name. In addition, the Panel
accepts as true all allegations submitted in the Complaint. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA
118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant asserts
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”); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp.,
D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response,
Respondent fails to invoke any circumstance that demonstrates any rights or
legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Bayerische Motoren Werke
AG v. Bavarian AG, FA110830 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2002) (finding that in
the absence of a Response the Panel is free to make inferences from the very
failure to respond and to assign greater weight to certain circumstances than
it might otherwise do).
No evidence
before the Panel indicates that Respondent is commonly known, either as an
individual, business or other organization, by the <wwwmassmutual.com>
domain name. See RMO, Inc. v.
Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶
4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the
domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see
also 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”).
Respondent is
using the <wwwmassmutual.com> domain name to direct Internet users
to a portal site offering links to gambling and shopping websites. The website located at the <wwwmassmutual.com>
domain name also subjects Internet users to numerous targeted and pop-up
advertisements offering competing services that are unaffiliated with
Complainant. The Panel infers that Respondent
is earning income by directing Internet users to the portal website and will
earn a bonus if an Internet user clicks on the links or advertisements. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not
using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods
or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc. v. Chan, FA 154119 (Nat. Arb.
Forum May 12, 2003) (finding that Respondent did not have rights or legitimate
interests in a domain name that used Complainant’s mark and redirected Internet
users to a website that pays domain name registrants for referring those users
to its search engine and pop-up advertisements); see also 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 Black &
Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where
Respondent used the typosquatted <wwwdewalt.com> domain name to divert
Internet users to a search engine web page, and failed to respond to the
Complaint).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant
urges that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Respondent is trying to attract Internet
users to the <wwwmassmutual.com> domain name by using
Complainant’s entire mark in the disputed domain name. When Internet users do not insert the period
between the “www” and Complainant’s MASS MUTUAL mark, they are linked to a
website completely unrelated to Complainant.
Respondent is creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark
as to the sponsorship or affiliation of the <wwwmassmutual.com>
domain name and the Panel reasonably infers that Respondent is commercially
benefiting from its unauthorized use of Complainant’s mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is
using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if Respondent profits from its
diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to
commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be
concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also ESPN,
Inc. v. Ballerini, FA 95410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000) (finding bad
faith where Respondent linked the domain name to another website
<iwin.com>, presumably receiving a portion of the advertising revenue
from the site by directing Internet traffic there, thus using a domain name to
attract Internet users for commercial gain).
Typosquatting occurs when registrants intentionally register misspelled
versions of another’s mark in order to attract Internet users who make
typographical errors. Thus, when
Respondent registered the <wwwmassmutual.com> domain name and diverted Internet users who omit the period between the “www” and
Complainant’s MASS MUTUAL mark Respondent is engaging in typosquatting. Since typosquatting itself is evidence of bad
faith, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the <wwwmassmutual.com>
domain name in bad faith. See 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
Canadian Tire Corp., Ltd. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net
1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (holding that “[t]he absence of
a dot between the “www” and
“canadiantire.com” [in the <wwwcanadiantire.com> domain name is] likely
to confuse Internet users, encourage them to access Respondent’s site” and
evidenced bad faith registration and use of the domain name); see also Black &
Decker Corp. v. 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).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii) 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 <wwwmassmutual.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: September 16, 2003.
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page