Crownaward.com

The timeline behind crownaward.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 Crown Awards Inc. v. Rizwanali a/k/a Rizwanali Khalfan Claim Number: FA0305000157294 PARTIES Complainant is Crown Awards, Inc., Hawthorne, NY (“Complainant”) represented by John C. Re of Aronauer Goldfarb Sills & Re, LLP. Respondent is Rizwanali a/k/a Rizwanali Khalfan, Syosset, NY (“Respondent”). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <crownaward.com> registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. PANEL 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. James A. Crary as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on May 12, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 13, 2003. On May 12, 2003, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <crownaward.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 May 19, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 9, 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@crownaward.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 June 16, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A. Crary 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 <crownaward.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CROWN AWARDS mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <crownaward.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <crownaward.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the CROWN AWARDS mark (Reg. No. 2,586,186 registered on June 25, 2002) in relation to mail-order retailing services and electronic retailing services via computers, featuring trophies, medals, plaques, ribbons, awards and personalized desk sets. Complainant and its affiliated company, Crown Trophy, Inc., have been actively operating a trophy and awards business under the CROWN TROPHY mark since 1984 and the CROWN AWARDS mark since 2000. Complainant has operated a website at <crownawards.com> since March 7, 2000 in connection with Complainant’s trophy and awards business. Respondent registered the <crownaward.com> domain name on October 6, 2002. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to <award-usa.com>, a website that offers products and services in direct competition with Complainant’s products and services. 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 that it has rights in the CROWN AWARDS mark through registration with the USPTO and continuous use in commerce since 2000. Respondent’s <crownaward.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CROWN AWARDS mark because the disputed domain name appropriates Complainant’s mark and merely omits the letter “s” from the end of the mark. The omission of the letter “s” does not significantly differentiate the domain name from the mark for purposes of analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because Complainant’s mark remains the dominant element of the domain name. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter “s” from the Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark did not change the overall impression of the mark and thus made the disputed domain name confusingly similar to it); see also Victoria's Secret v. Internet Inv. Firm Trust, FA 94344 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding the domain name <victoriasecret.com> to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, VICTORIA’S SECRET). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has failed to favor the Panel with a Response in this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as 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, due to Respondent’s failure to answer the allegations in the Complaint, the Panel presumes that Respondent lacks any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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 BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (“By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name”). Respondent is using the <crownaward.com> domain name to redirect Internet traffic to a website offering products and services that directly compete with Complainant’s. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name 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). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that “[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and for the same business”); 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). Furthermore, Respondent has presented no proof and there is no evidence in the record that indicates that Respondent is commonly known by CROWN AWARD or <crownaward.com>. Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish that it has any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain with regard 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). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered and is using the <crownaward.com> domain name to compete in the same market as Complainant. The registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a competitor’s mark suggests that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the Complainant's marks suggests that Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting 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). Moreover, Respondent’s registration and commercial use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark indicates that Respondent registered the <crownaward.com> domain name to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, which evidences registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet, Inc., D2000-0127 WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attempted to attract customers to its website, <efitnesswholesale.com>, and created confusion by offering similar products for sale as Complainant); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of Complainant). 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 <crownaward.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James A. Crary, Panelist Dated: July 1, 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.