Arizona Board of Regents, For and Behalf of Arizona State University v. Canweb Internet
Claim Number: FA1106001393853
Complainant is Arizona Board of Regents, for and on behalf of Arizona State University (“Complainant”), represented by Glenn S. Bacal of Bacal Law Group, P.C., Arizona, USA. Respondent is Canweb Internet (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sundevils.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 15, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on June 15, 2011«DateHardCopy».
On June 20, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sundevils.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 27, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 18, 2011 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sundevils.com. Also on June 27, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 22, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 <sundevils.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s SUN DEVILS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sundevils.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <sundevils.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Arizona Board of Regents, For and Behalf of Arizona State University, owns the SUN DEVILS mark which it uses in connection with a variety of educational, entertainment, and athletic services. Complainant also owns multiple trademark registrations for the SUN DEVILS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,438,108 registered April 28, 1987).
Respondent, Canweb Internet, registered the <sundevils.com> domain name on March 2, 1999. The disputed domain resolves to a website which previously resolved to Complainant’s main athletic competitor’s website selling competing football tickets. Shortly after, the disputed domain name began resolving to a pay-per-click travel website. The disputed domain name currently redirects Internet users automatically to an unaffiliated website of a naturist club displaying adult-oriented content.
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 contends that it has established rights in the SUN DEVILS mark. Registration of a mark with a federal trademark authority is enough to establish rights in a mark. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”). A mark does not need to be registered in the country a respondent works or lives in for a complainant to maintain its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction); see also KCTS Television Inc. v. Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2001) (holding that it does not matter for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy whether the complainant’s mark is registered in a country other than that of the respondent’s place of business). Complainant has provided the Panel with evidence of registrations of the SUN DEVILS mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,438,108 registered April 28, 1987). The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the SUN DEVILS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant additionally contends that the <sundevils.com> domain name is identical to its SUN DEVILS mark. The addition of generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant for the purposes of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Snow Fun, Inc. v. O'Connor, FA 96578 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2001) (finding that the domain name <termquote.com> is identical to the complainant’s TERMQUOTE mark); see also Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the <redhat.org> domain name is identical to the complainant’s RED HAT mark because the mere addition of gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). The deletion of a space between the words in a trademark is a change too minor to differentiate a domain name from a mark. See Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”); see also Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The <sundevils.com> domain name fully-incorporates Complainant’s mark while deleting the space between the two words in the mark and adding the gTLD “.com.” As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once a complainant has made a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove the opposite is true. See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)). The failure of a respondent to file a response to a complaint allows the panel to assume that the complainant’s allegations are correct. See EK Success, Ltd. v. Yi-Chi, CPR0314 (CPR June 12, 2003) (“[T]he Respondent's default cannot simply be construed as an admission of the allegations contained in the Complaint.”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case. The Panel will review the record for information suggesting that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Panels make Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) determinations based on the WHOIS records for a domain name as well as any other applicable information on the record. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee 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 IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use the SUN DEVILS mark. In addition, nothing in the WHOIS information suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The first use of the disputed domain name was to resolve to Complainant’s main athletic competitor’s website to sell football tickets. Panels have found that this use of a domain name was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 29, 2005) (holding that the respondent’s use of disputed domain names to market competing limousine services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), as the respondent was appropriating the complainant’s CAREY mark in order to profit from the mark). The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name was neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Similarly, the use of a disputed domain name to display links to third-party websites which are unrelated to the complainant is neither of the Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii) protected uses. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that using a domain name to direct Internet traffic to a website featuring pop-up advertisements and links to various third-party websites is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the registrant presumably receives compensation for each misdirected Internet user); see also Royal Bank of Scotland Grp plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites). After the first usage of the disputed domain name, the <sundevils.com> domain name resolved to a pay-per-click website which displayed links to unrelated, third-party websites. The Panel finds that this use is also neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offerings of goods or services nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair uses.
The use of a disputed domain name to display or link to adult-oriented material is further evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in a domain name. See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost In Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of its domain name to link unsuspecting Internet traffic to an adult-orientated website, containing images of scantily clad women in provocative poses, did not constitute a connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use); see also Target Brands, Inc. v. Bealo Group S.A., FA 128684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 17, 2002) (finding that use of the <targetstore.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to an adult-oriented website did not equate to a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Respondent’s current use of the <sundevils.com> domain name is to automatically redirect visitors to a third-party website for a nudist group which displays numerous adult-oriented images. The Panel finds that the current use of the disputed domain name demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the <sundevils.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.
Respondents may not register and use domain names which disrupt a complainant’s business. Using a domain name to resolve to a complainant’s competitor’s website which sells competing products disrupts a complainant’s business. See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s original use of the <sundevils.com> domain name to resolve to Complainant’s competitor’s website which sold competing goods disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
The use of a domain to capitalize off of the identical or confusingly similar nature of the domain name is similarly illustrative of bad faith on the part of the respondent. Panels have found the sale of competing goods and the display of links to third-party websites unrelated to the complainant to be examples of this behavior. See Dell Inc. v. Innervision Web Solutions, FA 445601 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was using the <dellcomputerssuck.com> domain name to divert Internet users to respondent’s website offering competing computer products and services); see also Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites). Respondent originally registered and used the <sundevils.com> domain name for the sale of competing athletic products. The subsequent use of the disputed domain name was to display links to unrelated, third-party websites for which Respondent likely received compensation for displaying and redirecting Internet traffic through. The Panel finds that, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), Respondent’s previous uses of the disputed domain name demonstrate bad faith.
The <sundevils.com> domain name currently redirects Internet users to an unaffiliated adult-oriented website. Panels have previously held that the registration and use of a domain name to display or redirect to adult-oriented content demonstrates bad faith. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Party Night Inc., FA 144647 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s tarnishing use of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to adult-oriented websites was evidence that the domain names were being used in bad faith); see also CCA Indus., Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (“this association with a [adult-oriented] web site can itself constitute a bad faith”). The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is 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 <sundevils.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 26, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page