Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publishing
Co. v. DRP Services
Claim
Number: FA0404000257771
Complainant is Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publishing Co.
(“Complainant”), represented by Lisa
Rosenburgh, of Sullivan & Worcester LLP, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New
York, NY 10104. Respondent is DRP Services (“Respondent”), POB 71117,
Jerusalem 91710, Israel.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <wwwchild.com>, registered with iHoldings.com,
Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com.
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.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 20, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 21, 2004.
On
April 26, 2004, iHoldings.com, Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the domain name <wwwchild.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 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 26, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
May 17, 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@wwwchild.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
May 27, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter,
Jr. (Ret.) 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 <wwwchild.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHILD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <wwwchild.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwchild.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant, Gruner
+ Jahr Printing & Publishing Company, is a magazine publisher. Complainant holds two registrations with the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the CHILD mark, Registration
Numbers 1,708,104 (magazine) and
2,453,136 (computer services), registered on May 26, 1992 and Febraury
27, 2001, respectively.
Complainant also
holds various USPTO registrations that incorporate the CHILD mark, including
Registration Numbers 2,310,102 (CHILD MAGAZINE KIDS’ BOOK CLUB), 2,310,103
(CHILD MAGAZINE MOM’S BOOK CLUB), and 2,769,014 (YOUR CHILD NOW), registered on
November 3, 1999, November 3, 1999, and July 8, 2003, respectively.
Complainant has
also registered the CHILD.COM mark with the USPTO, Registration Number
2,589,401, on July 2, 2002.
Respondent, DRP
Services, registered <wwwchild.com> on October 3, 2002. The domain name resolves to a search engine
that displays results for searches for the term “child,” providing links to
child-related sites, as well as links for “bankruptcy” and “debt
consolidation.” Its links resolve to
third parties that sell Complainant’s goods.
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 rights in the CHILD mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as evidenced
by its registration with the USPTO. 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 <wwwchild.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHILD mark. The only difference is the addition of the
letters “www,” which does not significantly distinguish the domain name from
the mark. See 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); see also 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”).
The Panel finds
that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The
Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing that
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name. In the face of such allegations,
the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have
rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where 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”); see also 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).
Respondent has
not submitted a Response. Therefore,
the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations in the Complaint as true. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v.
webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding
that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact
in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true); 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 assign greater weight to certain
circumstances than it might otherwise do).
Respondent
is using a domain name that takes advantage of a common mistyping of
Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to a search engine website. Using a domain name that takes advantage of
a mistyping of another’s mark to divert Internet users to a search engine is
nether a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Black
& Decker Corp. v. Azra 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); 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”).
There is
nothing in the record, including the WHOIS domain name registration
information, which indicates that Respondent is commonly known by the 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
using a domain name that is a common mistyping of Complainant’s mark to attract
Internet traffic to a search engine website.
This is evidence of 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) (“[The] 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
evidences 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).
Many may
legitimately use Complainant’s CHILD mark in the course of trade (i.e. it is
generic or descriptive). However,
Respondent’s typosquatting raises the presumption that Respondent is acting in
bad faith because typosquatting is, by nature, parasitic. See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini,
D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of
itself evidence of bad faith.”); see also Medline, Inc.
v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (“[I]n typosquatting cases, such as this one, it
would be difficult for Respondent to prove to the Panel that it did not have
actual knowledge of Complainant’s distinctive MEDLINE mark when it registered
the infringing <wwwmedline.com> domain name.”).
Respondent
is also appropriating Complainant’s mark to provide directory information for
child-related services as well as information about financial services. The Panel infers that Respondent is
receiving click-through revenues for these links. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is appropriating
Complainant’s mark to create the likelihood of confusion as to the source of
its services for commercial gain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered and used an
infringing domain name to attract users to a website sponsored by Respondent); see
also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
v. Northway, FA 95464 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 11, 2000) (finding that
Respondent registered the domain name <statefarmnews.com> in bad faith
because Respondent intended to use Complainant’s marks to attract the public to
the web site without permission from Complainant).
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 <wwwchild.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
June 7, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page