Fum Machineworks Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation
Claim Number: FA0705000980622
Complainant is Fum Machineworks Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Pallavi
Mehta Wahi, of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates
Ellis LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <wwwrecipezaar.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 9, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 10, 2007.
On May 9, 2007, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wwwrecipezaar.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 May 10, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 30, 2007 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@wwwrecipezaar.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <wwwrecipezaar.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RECIPEZAAR mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwrecipezaar.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwrecipezaar.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Fum Machineworks Inc., is an online provider of food-related services. In support of and in connection with the provision of these services, Complainant has registered the RECIPEZAAR mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,475,952 issued August 7, 2001).
Respondent registered the <wwwrecipezaar.com> domain name on June 22, 2004. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring links to websites offering the products of Complainant’s competitors.
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 asserts rights in the RECIPEZAAR mark through
registration of the mark with the USPTO.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s timely registration of the RECIPEZAAR
mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes its rights in the mark pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal Games v.
XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003)
(“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights
in the BLIZZARD 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.”).
Respondent’s disputed domain name
contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, eliminates the period normally
found after “www” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that these alterations make
the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v.
InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s
domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the
complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has made a prima
facie case in support of its allegations; therefore the burden shifts to
Respondent to set forth concrete evidence to show it has rights or legitimate
interests in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l,
D2001-0376 (WIPO
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website featuring links to competing websites, presumably for the purpose of generating click-through revenue through referral. The Panel finds that such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to 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 TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
There is no evidence to show that Respondent has ever been known by or operated a business under the disputed domain name. Nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS registration information suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Lacking contrary evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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>.”); see also DIMC, Inc. v. Phan, D2000-1519 (WIPO Feb. 20, 2001) (rejecting the claim that the respondent was commonly known by the “Krylon” nickname since there was no evidence indicating when the alleged nickname was adopted and how it was used).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s <wwwrecipezaar.com> domain name resolves to a website featuring links to competing websites. The Panel finds that such use amounts to a disruption of Complainant’s business and evinces registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Latingrocer.com, FA 94384 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent’s sites pass users through to the respondent’s competing business); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).
Respondent likely is deriving commercial benefit from its diversionary use of the disputed domain name registration. Unsuspecting Internet users are likely to become confused over the source of the resulting products offered on the website. The Panel finds that such use suggests an attraction for commercial gain, which is illustrative of registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Warren, FA 204147 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (“Although Complainant’s principal website is <century21.com>, many Internet users are likely to use search engines to find Complainant’s website, only to be mislead to Respondent’s website at the <century21realty.biz> domain name, which features links for competing real estate websites. Therefore, it is likely that Internet users seeking Complainant’s website, but who end up at Respondent’s website, will be confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website.”).
By omitting the punctuation normally accompanying a standard Internet address, Respondent is engaging in a practice commonly referred to as “typosquatting.” The Panel finds that typosquatting is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] 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. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because the respondent “created ‘a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location’. . . through Respondent’s persistent practice of ‘typosquatting’”).
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 <wwwrecipezaar.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: June 14, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum