Michelin North America, Inc. v. Jive
Network
Claim
Number: FA0508000529641
Complainant is Michelin North America, Inc. (“Complainant”),
represented by Neil M. Batavia, of Dority & Manning, Attorneys at Law, P.A., Post Office Box 1449, Greenville, SC 29602-1449. Respondent is Jive Network (“Respondent”), 420 Fentress Blvd., Daytona Beach, FL
32114.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <discount-michelin-tires.net>, <best-buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<best-buys-michelin-tires.com>, <buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<car-accessories-michelin-tires.com>, <car-tires-michelin.com>,
<cheap-tires-michelin.com>, <direct-buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<discount-tire-michelin-tires.com>, <discount-tires-michelin.com>,
<online-shopping-michelin-tires.com>, <products-michelin-tires.com>,
<quality-michelin-tires.com>, <racing-michelin-tires.com>,
<sport-michelin-tires.com>, <tire-michelin-tires.com>,
<tire-rack-michelin-tires.com>, <tires-michelin-tires.com>,
<tires-online-michelin-tires.com>, <rims-tires-michelin.com>,
<snow-tires-michelin.com>, <truck-tires-michelin.com>,
<wheels-tires-michelin.com>, <best-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<best-buys-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<car-accessories-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <direct-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<discount-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <discount-tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<discount-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <online-shopping-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<products-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <quality-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<racing-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <rims-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<sport-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tire-rack-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tires-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tires-online-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <car-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<cheap-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <snow-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<truck-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <wheels-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
and <uniroyal-tires.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software,
Inc.
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 electronically on August
2, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on August 4, 2005.
On
August 4, 2005 and August 17, 2005, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail
to the National Arbitration Forum that the <discount-michelin-tires.net>,
<best-buy-michelin-tires.com>, <best-buys-michelin-tires.com>,
<buy-michelin-tires.com>, <car-accessories-michelin-tires.com>,
<car-tires-michelin.com>, <cheap-tires-michelin.com>,
<direct-buy-michelin-tires.com>, <discount-tire-michelin-tires.com>,
<discount-tires-michelin.com>, <online-shopping-michelin-tires.com>,
<products-michelin-tires.com>, <quality-michelin-tires.com>,
<racing-michelin-tires.com>, <sport-michelin-tires.com>,
<tire-michelin-tires.com>, <tire-rack-michelin-tires.com>,
<tires-michelin-tires.com>, <tires-online-michelin-tires.com>,
<rims-tires-michelin.com>, <snow-tires-michelin.com>,
<truck-tires-michelin.com>, <wheels-tires-michelin.com>,
<best-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <best-buys-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <car-accessories-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<direct-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <discount-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<discount-tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <discount-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<online-shopping-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <products-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<quality-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <racing-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<rims-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <sport-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tire-rack-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tires-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tires-online-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<car-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <cheap-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<snow-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <truck-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<wheels-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, and <uniroyal-tires.com> domain
names are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the
current registrant of the names. Go
Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy
Software, Inc. 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 18, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
September 7, 2005 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@discount-michelin-tires.net, postmaster@best-buy-michelin-tires.com,
postmaster@best-buys-michelin-tires.com, postmaster@buy-michelin-tires.com, postmaster@car-accessories-michelin-tires.com,
postmaster@car-tires-michelin.com, postmaster@cheap-tires-michelin.com, postmaster@direct-buy-michelin-tires.com,
postmaster@discount-tire-michelin-tires.com, postmaster@discount-tires-michelin.com,
postmaster@online-shopping-michelin-tires.com, postmaster@products-michelin-tires.com,
postmaster@quality-michelin-tires.com, postmaster@racing-michelin-tires.com, postmaster@sport-michelin-tires.com,
postmaster@tire-michelin-tires.com, postmaster@tire-rack-michelin-tires.com, postmaster@tires-michelin-tires.com,
postmaster@tires-online-michelin-tires.com, postmaster@rims-tires-michelin.com,
postmaster@snow-tires-michelin.com, postmaster@truck-tires-michelin.com, postmaster@wheels-tires-michelin.com,
postmaster@best-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com, postmaster@best-buys-bf-goodrich-tires.com,
postmaster@buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com, postmaster@car-accessories-bf-goodrich-tires.com,
postmaster@direct-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com, postmaster@discount-bf-goodrich-tires.com,
postmaster@discount-tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com, postmaster@discount-tires-bf-goodrich.com,
postmaster@online-shopping-bf-goodrich-tires.com, postmaster@products-bf-goodrich-tires.com,
postmaster@quality-bf-goodrich-tires.com, postmaster@racing-bf-goodrich-tires.com,
postmaster@rims-tires-bf-goodrich.com, postmaster@sport-bf-goodrich-tires.com, postmaster@tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com,
postmaster@tire-rack-bf-goodrich-tires.com, postmaster@tires-bf-goodrich-tires.com,
postmaster@tires-online-bf-goodrich-tires.com, postmaster@car-tires-bf-goodrich.com,
postmaster@cheap-tires-bf-goodrich.com, postmaster@snow-tires-bf-goodrich.com, postmaster@truck-tires-bf-goodrich.com,
postmaster@wheels-tires-bf-goodrich.com, and postmaster@uniroyal-tires.com by
e-mail.
Having
received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum
transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
September 13, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John
J. Upchurch 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." 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <discount-michelin-tires.net>,
<best-buy-michelin-tires.com>, <best-buys-michelin-tires.com>,
<buy-michelin-tires.com>, <car-accessories-michelin-tires.com>,
<car-tires-michelin.com>, <cheap-tires-michelin.com>,
<direct-buy-michelin-tires.com>, <discount-tire-michelin-tires.com>,
<discount-tires-michelin.com>, <online-shopping-michelin-tires.com>,
<products-michelin-tires.com>, <quality-michelin-tires.com>,
<racing-michelin-tires.com>, <sport-michelin-tires.com>,
<tire-michelin-tires.com>, <tire-rack-michelin-tires.com>,
<tires-michelin-tires.com>, <tires-online-michelin-tires.com>,
<rims-tires-michelin.com>, <snow-tires-michelin.com>,
<truck-tires-michelin.com>, <wheels-tires-michelin.com>,
<best-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <best-buys-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <car-accessories-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<direct-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <discount-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<discount-tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <discount-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<online-shopping-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <products-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<quality-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <racing-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<rims-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <sport-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tire-rack-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tires-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tires-online-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<car-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <cheap-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<snow-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <truck-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<wheels-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, and <uniroyal-tires.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICHELIN, BFGOODRICH, and
UNIROYAL marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <discount-michelin-tires.net>, <best-buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<best-buys-michelin-tires.com>, <buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<car-accessories-michelin-tires.com>, <car-tires-michelin.com>,
<cheap-tires-michelin.com>, <direct-buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<discount-tire-michelin-tires.com>, <discount-tires-michelin.com>,
<online-shopping-michelin-tires.com>, <products-michelin-tires.com>,
<quality-michelin-tires.com>, <racing-michelin-tires.com>,
<sport-michelin-tires.com>, <tire-michelin-tires.com>,
<tire-rack-michelin-tires.com>, <tires-michelin-tires.com>,
<tires-online-michelin-tires.com>, <rims-tires-michelin.com>,
<snow-tires-michelin.com>, <truck-tires-michelin.com>,
<wheels-tires-michelin.com>, <best-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<best-buys-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<car-accessories-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <direct-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<discount-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <discount-tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<discount-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <online-shopping-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<products-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <quality-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<racing-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <rims-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<sport-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tire-rack-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tires-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tires-online-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <car-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<cheap-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <snow-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<truck-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <wheels-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
and <uniroyal-tires.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <discount-michelin-tires.net>,
<best-buy-michelin-tires.com>, <best-buys-michelin-tires.com>,
<buy-michelin-tires.com>, <car-accessories-michelin-tires.com>,
<car-tires-michelin.com>, <cheap-tires-michelin.com>,
<direct-buy-michelin-tires.com>, <discount-tire-michelin-tires.com>,
<discount-tires-michelin.com>, <online-shopping-michelin-tires.com>,
<products-michelin-tires.com>, <quality-michelin-tires.com>,
<racing-michelin-tires.com>, <sport-michelin-tires.com>,
<tire-michelin-tires.com>, <tire-rack-michelin-tires.com>,
<tires-michelin-tires.com>, <tires-online-michelin-tires.com>,
<rims-tires-michelin.com>, <snow-tires-michelin.com>,
<truck-tires-michelin.com>, <wheels-tires-michelin.com>,
<best-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <best-buys-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <car-accessories-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<direct-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <discount-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<discount-tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <discount-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<online-shopping-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <products-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<quality-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <racing-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<rims-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <sport-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tire-rack-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tires-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tires-online-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<car-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <cheap-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<snow-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <truck-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<wheels-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, and <uniroyal-tires.com> domain
names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Michelin North America, Inc., designs, manufactures, and markets tires for
several vehicle industries, and is involved in vehicle racing and rallies. In connection with the products offered,
Complainant owns numerous marks with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”), including the MICHELIN mark (Reg. No. 892,045 issued June 2,
1970), the BFGOODRICH mark (Reg. No. 1,089,493 issued April 18, 1978), and the
UNIROYAL mark (Reg. No. 756,434 issued September 10, 1963).
Respondent
registered the <discount-michelin-tires.net>, <best-buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<best-buys-michelin-tires.com>, <buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<car-accessories-michelin-tires.com>, <car-tires-michelin.com>,
<cheap-tires-michelin.com>, <direct-buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<discount-tire-michelin-tires.com>, <discount-tires-michelin.com>,
<online-shopping-michelin-tires.com>, <products-michelin-tires.com>,
<quality-michelin-tires.com>, <racing-michelin-tires.com>,
<sport-michelin-tires.com>, <tire-michelin-tires.com>,
<tire-rack-michelin-tires.com>, <tires-michelin-tires.com>,
<tires-online-michelin-tires.com>, <rims-tires-michelin.com>,
<snow-tires-michelin.com>, <truck-tires-michelin.com>,
<wheels-tires-michelin.com>, <best-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<best-buys-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<car-accessories-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <direct-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<discount-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <discount-tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<discount-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <online-shopping-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<products-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <quality-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<racing-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <rims-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<sport-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tire-rack-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tires-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tires-online-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <car-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<cheap-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <snow-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<truck-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <wheels-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
and <uniroyal-tires.com> domain names in March 2005. Each of the domain names resolves to
websites that feature various unrelated commercial links.
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. 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.”).
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 MICHELIN, BFGOODRICH, and UNIROYAL marks through
registration with the USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration
of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the
mark.”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v.
DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes
Complainant's rights in the mark.”).
Complainant
asserts that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
registered marks. All of Respondent’s
domain names feature one of Complainant’s entire MICHELIN, BFGOODRICH, or
UNIROYAL marks while adding hyphens and various generic terms, such as “tires,”
“snow,” “best,” “buys,” etc., to the individual marks. Panels have found that the addition of
hyphens and generic terms fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from
a registered mark. See Health
Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003)
(“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the
determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see
also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026
(WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in
dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic
word or term); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409
(WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary
descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from
the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely
the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant
asserts that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names. Complainant’s assertion
creates a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and, thus, shifts the
burden of proof onto Respondent. See
G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002)
(“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under
the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure
to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would
promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (once the complainant asserts that the respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden
shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or
legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”). Because Respondent failed to respond, the Panel infers that no
rights or legitimate interests exist pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000)
(finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke
any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in
the domain name); see also Pavillion
Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000)
(finding that the respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an
admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).
Respondent is
using each of the disputed domain names to operate websites featuring various
commercial links unrelated to Complainant’s business for which Respondent
presumably receives referral fees. Such
diversionary use for Respondent’s commercial gain is neither a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free
Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users
seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's
benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶
4(c)(iii).”); see also WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev,
FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users
to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent
presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not
a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the
Policy).
Finally,
Respondent has failed to set forth affirmative evidence showing that Respondent
is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. As a result, the Panel finds that Respondent
lacks rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.
23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name
when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA
96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or
using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also
G.D. Searle & Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due to the fame of
Complainant’s mark there must be strong evidence that Respondent is commonly
known by the disputed domain name in order to find that Respondent has rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). However, there is no evidence
on record, and Respondent has not come forward with any proof to establish that
it is commonly known as CELEBREXRX or <celebrexrx.com>.”).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s
commercial uses of the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark, will likely cause confusion among Internet users as to the
affiliation with or sponsorship of the resulting websites. Such diversionary use for Respondent’s own
commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle
& Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002)
(finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly
similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users
seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).
Finally,
Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual or constructive
knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MICHELIN, BFGOODRICH, and UNIROYAL
marks. Complainant’s registration of
the marks with the USPTO confers constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights
in the marks upon Respondent. See
Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002)
(“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO,
a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use
the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”); see also Victoria’s Cyber Secret Ltd. v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1349 (S.D.Fla. 2001) (noting that “a
Principal Register registration [of a trademark or service mark] is
constructive notice of a claim of ownership so as to eliminate any defense of
good faith adoption” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1072). Registration of a confusingly similar domain name with actual or
constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights constitutes bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“[T]here is a legal presumption of bad faith, when
Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks,
actually or constructively.”); see also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr.
17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive
knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration).
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) 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 <discount-michelin-tires.net>, <best-buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<best-buys-michelin-tires.com>, <buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<car-accessories-michelin-tires.com>, <car-tires-michelin.com>,
<cheap-tires-michelin.com>, <direct-buy-michelin-tires.com>,
<discount-tire-michelin-tires.com>, <discount-tires-michelin.com>,
<online-shopping-michelin-tires.com>, <products-michelin-tires.com>,
<quality-michelin-tires.com>, <racing-michelin-tires.com>,
<sport-michelin-tires.com>, <tire-michelin-tires.com>,
<tire-rack-michelin-tires.com>, <tires-michelin-tires.com>,
<tires-online-michelin-tires.com>, <rims-tires-michelin.com>,
<snow-tires-michelin.com>, <truck-tires-michelin.com>,
<wheels-tires-michelin.com>, <best-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<best-buys-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<car-accessories-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <direct-buy-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<discount-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <discount-tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<discount-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <online-shopping-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<products-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <quality-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<racing-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <rims-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<sport-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tire-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tire-rack-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <tires-bf-goodrich-tires.com>,
<tires-online-bf-goodrich-tires.com>, <car-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<cheap-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <snow-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
<truck-tires-bf-goodrich.com>, <wheels-tires-bf-goodrich.com>,
and <uniroyal-tires.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from
Respondent to Complainant.
John
J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: September 27, 2005
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page