Jrecords.tv

The timeline behind jrecords.tv

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION J Records, LLC v. Nasedine Mecheri Claim Number: FA0206000114652 PARTIES Complainant is J Records, New York, NY, USA (“Complainant”) represented by Brad D. Rose, of Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn, LLP. Respondent is Nasedine Mecheri, Paris, FRANCE (“Respondent”). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <jrecords.tv>, registered with The .tv Corporation. PANEL 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. Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on June 18, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 18, 2002. On July 8, 2002, The .tv Corporation confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <jrecords.tv> is registered with The .tv Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. The .tv Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the The .tv Corporation 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 July 8, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 29, 2002 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@jrecords.tv 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 August 9, 2002 pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The <jrecords.tv> domain name is identical to Complainant's J RECORDS mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response. FINDINGS Complainant has used the J RECORDS mark since 2000 as a record label. In its first year of existence, Complainant’s J RECORDS label registered over $200 million in sales on just eleven different albums. Complainant’s J RECORDS mark is the label for artists such as five-time grammy winner Alicia Keys, O-Town, Luther Vandross, and Busta Rhymes. Complainant owns the following trademark applications for J RECORDS. MARKS APPLICATION SER. NO. CATEGORIES OF GOODS OR SERVICES 1. J RECORDS 76/111369 Class 9: Musical sound recordings and audio-visual recordings, namely, compact discs, tape cassettes, records, CD-ROMs, video tapes, dvds and laser discs. 2. J RECORDS & DESIGN 76/163763 Class 9: Musical sound recordings and audio-visual recordings, namely, compact discs, tape cassettes, records, CD-ROMs, video tapes, dvds and laser discs. 3. J RECORDS & DESIGN 76/163761 Class 9: Musical sound recordings and audio-visual recordings, namely, compact discs, tape cassettes, records, CD-ROMs, video tapes, dvds and laser discs. 4. J & DESIGN 76/163767 Class 9: Musical sound recordings and audio-visual recordings, namely, compact discs, tape cassettes, records, CD-ROMs, video tapes, dvds and laser discs. 5. J RECORDS 76/111370 Class 35: Computerized on-line retail and ordering services in the field of musical sound recordings and audio-visual recordings provided by means of a global computer network. 6. J RECORDS & DESIGN 76/163770 Class 35: Computerized on-line retail and ordering services in the field of musical sound recordings and audio-visual recordings provided by means of a global computer network. 7. J RECORDS & DESIGN 76/163769 Class 35: Computerized on-line retail and ordering services in the field of musical sound recordings and audio-visual recordings provided by means of a global computer network. 8. J RECORDS 76/111371 Class 41: Entertainment services, namely, producing and distributing musical audio and video recordings; organizing concerts featuring live musical performances. 9. J RECORDS & DESIGN 76/163764 Class 41: Entertainment services, namely, producing and distributing musical audio and video recordings; organizing concerts featuring live musical performances. 10. J RECORDS & DESIGN 76/163762 Class 41: Entertainment services, namely, producing and distributing musical audio and video recordings; organizing concerts featuring live musical performances. 11. J & Design 76/163774 Class 41: Music publishing services. 12. J & Design 76/163773 Class 41: Music publishing services. 13. J & Design 76/163768 Class 41: Entertainment services, namely, producing musical audio and video recordings; organizing concerts featuring live musical performances. 14. J & Design 76/163766 Class 41: Entertainment services, namely, producing musical audio and video recordings; organizing concerts featuring live musical performances. 15. J & Design 76/163765 Class 41: Entertainment services, namely, producing musical audio and video recordings; organizing concerts featuring live musical performances. 16. J & Design 76/163772 Class 35: Computerized on-line retail and ordering services in the field of musical sound recordings and audio-visual recordings provided by means of a global computer network. 17. J & Design 76/163771 Class 35: Computerized on-line retail and ordering services in the field of musical sound recordings and audio-visual recordings provided by means of a global computer network. Complainant has spent large amounts of money ($65 million in 2001 alone) and time marketing and promoting its J RECORDS mark. Complainant has also received worldwide publicity with respect to its business operations due to the fame of its founder, Clive Davis the former head of Arista Records. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <jrecords.tv> on February 18, 2002, well after Complainant began using and promoting its J RECORDS mark. Furthermore, Respondent registered the domain name after Complainant’s very successful business year resulting in four top-ten, platinum selling albums and immediately after J RECORDS label artists received three American Music Awards and six Grammy nominations. Respondent is not currently using the disputed domain name, but has admitted to Complainant that it plans to use the domain name in relation to the music industry. DISCUSSION 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 the 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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (2) the 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established that it has rights in the J RECORDS mark through its numerous trademark registrations. Respondent’s <jrecords.tv> domain name is identical to Complainant’s J RECORDS mark because it incorporates Complainant’s entire J RECORDS mark and merely adds the country code “.tv.” The addition of a country code, like a generic top-level domain name such as “.com,” does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of identical or confusing similarity. See World Wrestling Fed'n Entm't, Inc. v. Rapuano, DTV2001-0010 (WIPO May 23, 2001) (finding that “[t]he addition of the country code top level domain (ccTLD) designation <.tv> does not serve to distinguish those names from Complainant’s marks since ‘.tv’ is a common Internet address identifier that is not specifically associated with Respondent”); see also Clairol Inc. v. Fux, DTV2001-0006 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the domain name <clairol.tv> is identical to Complainant’s CLAIROL marks). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has failed to come forward with a Response and therefore it is presumed that Respondent has no rights or 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, when Respondent fails 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”). Respondent is using a domain name identical to Complainant’s well-known mark in order to create a likelihood of confusion and divert Internet users interested in Complainant to Respondent’s domain name. This type of use is not considered to be in relation to a bona 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 Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because the Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion with the Complainant's website and marks, it's use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use); see also Household Int’l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enter., FA 95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2000) (inferring that Respondent registered the domain name <householdbank.com>, which incorporates Complainants HOUSEHOLD BANK mark, with hopes of attracting Complainant’s customers and thus finding no rights or legitimate interests). There is no evidence on record, and Respondent has not come forward to offer any proof that it is commonly known as J RECORDS or <jrecords.tv>. Therefore, Respondent has not established that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Based on the notoriety Complainant’s mark has achieved and its numerous registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, it can be inferred that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Registration of an infringing domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark is evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy Para. 4(a)(iii). See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb 11, 2002) (finding that “[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse”); see also Victoria’s Cyber Secret Ltd. P’ship 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. Sec. 1072); 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). Furthermore, any attempt to use the disputed domain name in the music industry by Respondent will result in a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, and affiliation of <jrecords.tv>. This confusion will likely produce commercial gain for Respondent, which is evidence of bad faith use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Northway, FA 95464 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 11, 2000) (finding that the 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); see also 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). Respondent has refused Complainant’s attempts to purchase the domain name and commented about participating in the music industry. Based on this behavior, it can be inferred that Respondent registered the <jrecords.tv> domain name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in a domain name with the “.tv” country code, which is evidence of bad faith use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Surface Prot. Indus., Inc. v. Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that, given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, Respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion); see also Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. S&S Enter. Ltd., D2000-0802 (WIPO Sept. 9, 2000) (finding that “Registration of a domain name [by Respondent that incorporates another’s trademark] goes further than merely correctly using in an advertisement the trademark of another in connection with that other’s goods or services: it prevents the trademark owner from reflecting that mark in a corresponding domain name”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <jrecords.tv> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.) Dated: August 12, 2002 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.