Bdoseidman.com

The timeline behind bdoseidman.com

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 BDO Seidman LLP v. T. Allen d/b/a AMR Claim Number: FA0302000146230 PARTIES Complainant is BDO Seidman LLP, New York, NY (“Complainant”) represented by Elizabeth A. Corradino, of Moses & Singer LLP. Respondent is T. Allen d/b/a AMR, Las Vegas, NV (“Respondent”). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bdoseidman.com> registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. 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. John J. Upchurch as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 19, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 21, 2003. On February 20, 2003, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <bdoseidman.com> is registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 February 27, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 19, 2003 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@bdoseidman.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 March 25, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <bdoseidman.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BDO SEIDMAN mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bdoseidman.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <bdoseidman.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has used the BDO SEIDMAN mark in commerce for over 30 years. Complainant uses the mark in connection with various services, including accounting services, business management and consulting services, and financial consulting and investment services. Respondent registered the <bdoseidman.com> domain name on November 1, 2001. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the website <amrtax.com>, which offers similar financial services as Complainant. 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 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The ICANN dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice” to support a domain name Complaint under the Policy. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2, Vol. 4 (2000). Complainant has established that it has common law rights in the BDO SEIDMAN mark through continuous use in commerce for over 30 years. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require that the Complainant's trademark or service mark be registered by a government authority or agency for such rights to exist. See British Broadcasting Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (noting that the Policy “does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and applying the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service marks”); see also Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (finding that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy does not require “that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist”). Respondent’s <bdoseidman.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name integrates Complainant’s entire mark, omits the space between the two words and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the end of Complainant’s mark. Neither the omission of the space between the words of Complainant’s mark nor the addition of the gTLD to the end of the mark sufficiently distinguish the domain name to absolve the confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark. See Wembley Nat’l Stadium Ltd. v. Thomson, D2000-1233 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding that the domain name <wembleystadium.net> is identical to the WEMBLEY STADIUM mark); see also Croatia Airlines v. Kwen Kijong, AF-0302 (eResolution Sept. 25, 2000) (finding that the domain name <croatiaairlines.com> is identical to Complainant's CROATIA AIRLINES trademark); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding that "the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants"). Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has not supplied the Panel with a Response with regard to this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel may accept the Complaint’s reasonable inferences and allegations as true. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Furthermore, the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) because Respondent has not come forward to answer the allegations in the Complaint. See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the Respondent never submitted a Response nor provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise); see also Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc., AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where no such right or interest was immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent did not come forward to suggest any right or interest it may have possessed). Respondent is using the <bdoseidman.com> domain name to redirect Internet traffic to the website <amrtax.com>, which provides similar financial services as Complainant. Respondent’s use of the domain name to divert and confuse Internet users into believing that they are being offered Complainant’s services when, in fact, the services are being offered by Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, 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 N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no bona fide use where Respondent used the domain name to divert Internet users to its competing website); see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from Complainant's site to a competing website). Respondent has provided the Panel with no evidence, and no proof can be gleaned from the record to establish that Respondent is commonly known by BDO SEIDMAN or <bdoseidman.com>. Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use). Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the <bdoseidman.com> domain name to redirect Internet traffic to the website <amrtax.com>, which offers financial services in competition with Complainant. The registration of a domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business); see also Surface Protection 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). Furthermore, because Respondent is using an identical domain name to Complainant’s mark and offering similar services to Complainant’s services, the Panel may infer that Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See America Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark and offering the same chat services via his website as the Complainant); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site). Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bdoseidman.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. John J. Upchurch , Panelist Dated: March 27, 2003 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.