1-800-East West Mortgage Company, Inc. v.
Domain Asia Ventures
Claim
Number: FA0403000245922
Complainant is 1-800-East West Mortgage Company, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by Sean F. Heneghan, 31 Reading Hill Avenue, Melrose, MA 02176. Respondent is Domain Asia Ventures (“Respondent”), 255 Xiaoxue Road, Xiamen,
Fujian 361001, China.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <wwwisoldmyhouse.com>, registered with Moniker
Online Services.
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.
John
J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on March 12, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on March 15, 2004.
On
March 16, 2004, Moniker Online Services confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <wwwisoldmyhouse.com> is registered with Moniker
Online Services and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker
Online Services has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online
Services 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
March 22, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
April 12, 2004 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@wwwisoldmyhouse.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
April 20, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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. Respondent’s <wwwisoldmyhouse.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ISOLDMYHOUSE.COM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <wwwisoldmyhouse.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwisoldmyhouse.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
1-800-East West Mortgage Company, Inc., operates it business under the moniker
ISOLDMYHOUSE.COM. It claims common-law
rights under this name, and offers a previous case (1-800-East West Mortgage
Co., Inc. v. Shing, FA 175288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 17, 2003)) as
evidence of its rights in this mark.
Complainant has used the ISOLDMYHOUSE.COM mark since as early as
2000. On May 2, 2003, Complainant sent
a cease and desist letter to Respondent.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name, <wwwisoldmyhouse.com>, on
December 6, 2002. Respondent is using
the domain name to lead Internet users to a pay-per-click search engine service
that features third-party real estate services.
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
claims it has common-law rights in the ISOLDMYHOUSE.COM mark. To establish evidence of secondary meaning
it does not present any direct evidence.
Rather, Complainant refers to 1-800-East West Mortgage Co., Inc. v.
Shing, FA 175288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 17, 2003), where a previous
Panel found that Complainant has rights in the ISOLDMYHOUSE.COM mark. Although previous Panel decisions are not
binding, the Panel finds the decision involving Complainant persuasive. Complainant has demonstrated secondary
meaning in the ISOLDMYHOUSE.COM mark, establishing common-law rights. See SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13,
2000) (finding that the Rules do not require that Complainant's trademark or
service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights
to exist. Rights in the mark can be
established by pending trademark applications); see also Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use
was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established).
The Panel finds
the <wwwisoldmyhouse.com> domain name is confusingly dimilar to
the ISOLDMYHOUSE.COM mark, the only difference is the addition of the letters
“www,” which does not significantly distinguish the domain name from
Complainant’s mark. 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 Marie Claire Album v.
Geoffrey 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).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has
failed to produce a Response in this proceeding. Therefore, it is presumed that
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO
Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as
an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).
Furthermore, because Respondent failed to submit a Response, the Panel is
permitted to make all inferences in favor of Complainant. See 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”).
Internet users
who omit the first period when typing Complainant’s mark in an Internet browser
bar will arrive at Respondent’s domain name.
Attracting Internet traffic by relying on a third-party’s customers’
typographic errors is known at “typosquatting.” Typosquatting is not a bona fide offering of goods or services,
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the
name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that
Respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of
Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that Respondent
lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis á vis
Complainant); 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
webpage, and failed to respond to the Complaint).
There is nothing
in the record, including Respondent’s WHOIS domain name registration
information, which indicates that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed
domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See Tercent Inc. v. 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); see
also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23,
2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when
Respondent is not known by the mark).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
appropriating Complainant’s mark to lead Internet users, seeking Complainant’s
site, to a search engine. Because
Respondent is profiting from this redirecting, it is creating a likelihood of
confusion to attract Internet users for commercial gain. This is bad faith registration and use,
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 3, 2003) (stating that “[s]ince the disputed domain names contain
entire versions of Complainant’s marks and are used for something completely
unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant
would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search
engine website” in holding that the domain names were registered and used in
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see
also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used
the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent
was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its
commercial website).
Additionally,
Respondent is typosquatting on Complainant’s mark to siphon off customers
familiar with the goodwill associated on or about the mark. This is bad faith registration and use,
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
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).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established 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 <wwwisoldmyhouse.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
John
J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: May 4, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page