Blizzardstudios.com

The timeline behind blizzardstudios.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 Vivendi Universal Games and Davidson & Associates, Inc. v. New Gideon, Inc. Claim Number: FA0304000153625 PARTIES Complainant is Vivendi Universal Games and Davidson & Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, CA (“Complainant”) represented by David J. Steele of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP. Respondent is New Gideon, Balto, MD (“Respondent”). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <blizzardstudios.com> registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com. 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. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on April 2, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 2, 2003. On April 2, 2003, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <blizzardstudios.com> is registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com 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 April 3, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 23, 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@blizzardstudios.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 April 29, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 <blizzardstudios.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLIZZARD mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <blizzardstudios.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <blizzardstudios.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the BLIZZARD mark, including Reg. No. 2,490,187 (registered on January 7, 2000) in relation to computer game software and instruction manuals sold as a unit. Complainant operates a website at <battle.net> where more than 200,000 active users play Blizzard Entertainment’s online computer games. Respondent registered the <blizzardstudios.com> domain name on April 2, 2002. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to a pornographic website. 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 Complainant has established its rights in the BLIZZARD mark through registration with the USPTO and continuous use in commerce. Respondent’s <blizzardstudios.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name appropriates Complainant’s entire registered mark and simply adds the descriptive term “studios” to the end of the mark. The addition of a descriptive term to a famous mark does not significantly differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark, especially when the additional term is closely associated with the trademark holder’s business, because the famous mark remains the most significant element of the domain name. See Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which Complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity); see also Marriott Int’l v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARRIOTT mark). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complainant’s allegations. Thus, the Panel may infer that all of the reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint are true. 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”); 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). Moreover, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could establish any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. When Complainant asserts a prima facie case, Respondent bears the burden of refuting Complainant’s assertions and establishing its rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 or provided the Panel with evidence to suggest otherwise); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent fails to respond). Respondent is using the <blizzardstudios.com> domain name to divert Internet traffic to a website that displays graphic, pornographic images. The use of a domain name confusingly similar to a registered mark to redirect Internet users to a pornographic website 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 MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services to use a domain name for commercial gain by attracting Internet users to third party sites offering sexually explicit and pornographic material where such use is calculated to mislead consumers and to tarnish the Complainant’s mark); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that infringing on another's well-known mark to provide a link to a pornographic site is not a legitimate or fair use). Respondent is not commonly known by either BLIZZARD STUDIOS or <blizzardstudios.com>. Therefore, Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also 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). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the <blizzardstudios.com> domain name, a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLIZZARD mark, to redirect Internet users to a pornographic website. Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to a pornographic website demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CCA Indus., Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (finding that “this association with a pornographic web site can itself constitute bad faith”); see also Youtv, Inc. v. Alemdar, FA 94243 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attracted users to his website for commercial gain and linked his website to pornographic websites). Furthermore, the Panel may infer that Respondent is benefiting monetarily from its operation of a pornographic website. Thus, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent linked the domain name in question to websites displaying banner advertisements and pornographic material). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established. DECISION Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blizzardstudios.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret), Panelist Dated: May 5, 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.