Wwwcountrywide.com

The timeline behind wwwcountrywide.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 Countrywide Financial Corporation v. Charles Johnson Claim Number: FA0307000169095 PARTIES Complainant is Countrywide Financial Corporation, Calabasas, CA (“Complainant”) represented by Bobby A. Ghajar of Howrey Simon Arnold & White LLP. Respondent is Charles Johnson, Dallas, TX (“Respondent”). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <wwwcountrywide.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. Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on July 17, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 21, 2003. On July 17, 2003, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wwwcountrywide.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 July 21, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 11, 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@wwwcountrywide.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 August 19, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (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 <wwwcountrywide.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUNTRYWIDE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwcountrywide.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwcountrywide.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a leading financial services company both in the United States and abroad, offering a wide range of financial products and services. Complainant owns trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the COUNTRYWIDE mark, including Reg. No. 1,744,794 (registered on January 5, 1993) in relation to financial services, namely, banking, insurance agency and securities brokerage services. Complainant registered the <countrywide.com> and <mycountrywide.com> domain names to expand its business presence to the Internet. These domain names receive over one million visitors per week. Respondent registered the <wwwcountrywide.com> domain name on May 21, 2001. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to a website at the <freedebtconsolidation.com> domain name, which is operated by a company, Free Debt Consolidation, Inc., that competes with Complainant in the financial services arena. The diversionary website also displays pop-up advertisements, featuring products and services that compete with Complainant’s. 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 COUNTRYWIDE mark through registration with the USPTO. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption). Respondent’s <wwwcountrywide.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUNTRYWIDE mark because the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and adds the letters “www” to the beginning of the mark. The addition of the letters “www” to the mark does not distinguish the domain name from the mark because the added letters capitalize on the common, typographical error of omitting the period between the letters “www” and the domain name. See Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. S1A, FA 128683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002) (holding confusing similarity has been established because the prefix "www" does not sufficiently differentiate the <wwwneimanmarcus.com> domain name from Complainant's NEIMAN-MARCUS mark); see also Dana Corp. v. $$$ This Domain Name Is For Sale $$$, FA 117328 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2002) (finding Respondent's <wwwdana.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's registered DANA mark because Complainant's mark remains the dominant feature). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has neglected to favor the Panel with a Response. Therefore, the Panel accepts all of Complainant’s reasonable allegations and inferences to be true. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true); see also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Bavarian AG, FA110830 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2002) (finding that in the absence of a Response the Panel is free to make inferences from the very failure to respond and assign greater weight to certain circumstances than it might otherwise do). Furthermore, based on Respondent’s failure to respond, 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 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 <wwwcountrywide.com> domain name to divert Internet traffic to the website of a competitor in the financial services industry. The use of a domain name confusingly similar to a registered trademark to divert Internet users to the mark holder’s business competitor does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also N. Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that diverted Internet users to Respondent’s competing website through the use of Complainant’s mark). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record and Respondent has proffered no proof that it is commonly known by WWWCOUNTRYWIDE or <wwwcountrywide.com>. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to establish any 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel infers that Respondent earns a profit from his use of the <wwwcountrywide.com> domain name to divert Internet traffic to Complainant’s competitor’s website, which also features pop-up advertisements that offer goods and services in competition with Complainant’s. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name suggests that Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, which evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to 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 Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. d/b/a SAFLOK v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with Complainant’s illustrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)); see also Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attracted users to advertisements). Moreover, the very fact that the diversionary website offers goods and services in competition with Complainant’s business indicates that the <wwwcountrywide.com> domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the registration of a domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor is evidence of registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Gen. Media Communications, Inc. v. Vine Ent., FA 96554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2001) (finding bad faith where a competitor of Complainant registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark to host a pornographic web site); see also 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). Furthermore, Respondent’s registration and use of a domain name that capitalizes on a common typographical error such as the omission of the period between the letters “www” and the domain name itself demonstrates Respondent’s registration and use of the <wwwcountrywide.com> domain name in bad faith. See Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the “www” portion of [a] web-address,” evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith); see also RE/MAX Int’l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 142046 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2003) (inferring that Respondent’s registration of the <wwwremax.com> domain name, incorporating Complainant’s entire mark, was done with actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the infringing domain name, evidencing bad faith). The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwwcountrywide.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist Dated: August 29, 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.