Yahooautos.com

The timeline behind yahooautos.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 Yahoo! Inc. v. Dkal Claim Number: FA0402000238650 PARTIES Complainant is Yahoo! Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kelly, of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner L.L.P., 1300 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20005-3315. Respondent is Dkal (“Respondent”), Crcega 329 4 planta, Barcelona, Barcelona 08037. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <yahooautos.com>, registered with Capital Networks Pty Ltd d/b/a TotalNIC. 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. Sandra Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 20, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 23, 2004. On February 23, 2004, Capital Networks Pty Ltd d/b/a TotalNIC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <yahooautos.com> is registered with Capital Networks Pty Ltd d/b/a TotalNIC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Capital Networks Pty Ltd d/b/a TotalNIC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Capital Networks Pty Ltd d/b/a TotalNIC 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 26, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 17, 2004 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@yahooautos.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 24, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin 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 <yahooautos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <yahooautos.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <yahooautos.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a global Internet communications, media, and commerce company that delivers a branded network of comprehensive searching, directory, information, communication, and shopping services, and other online activities and features to hundreds of millions of Internet users. Complainant offers a wide variety of services using the YAHOO! mark in conjunction with a descriptive name for its services. Theses services include YAHOO! Autos, which provides users with a wide variety of auto-related services and information (e.g., auto buying, selling, research, insurance, and repairs). Complainant holds several registrations for the YAHOO! mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including Reg. Nos. 2,403,227 and 2,040,222 (registered on November 14, 2000 and February 25, 1997, respectively). Respondent registered the <yahooautos.com> domain name on April 30, 2003. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website that is an automobile-related, web directory website provided by Dark Blue Affiliate Network. 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 rights in the mark through registration with the USPTO. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also 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 <yahooautos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the domain name fully incorporates the YAHOO! mark with the exception of the exclamation point and the addition of the generic or descriptive term “auto.” The omission of the exclamation point and the addition of the generic or descriptive term “auto” are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2000) finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark; see also Chi-Chi’s Inc. v. Rest. Commentary, D2000-0321 (WIPO June 29, 2000) finding the domain name <chichis.com> to be identical to Complainant’s CHI-CHI’S mark, despite the omission of the apostrophe and hyphen from the mark; see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Anytime Online Traffic School, FA 146930 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 11, 2003) finding that Respondent’s domain names, which incorporated Complainant’s entire mark and merely added the descriptive terms “traffic school,” “defensive driving,” and “driver improvement” did not add any distinctive features capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity; see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business. Furthermore, the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the <yahooautos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant; see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Due to Respondent’s failure to contest the allegations of the Complaint, the Panel presumes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <yahooautos.com> 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; see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) finding that by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the <yahooautos.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply; see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question. Furthermore, Respondent’s <yahooautos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark and is used to offer goods and services that compete with Complainant. Respondent’s competitive use of the infringing domain name does not constitute a bona fide 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 Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) finding that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a pay-per-click search engine, in competition with Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services; see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s use of the infringing domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii) because Respondent and Complainant both offer auto-related services. 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 EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15, 2000) finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where Respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites. Furthermore, Respondent’s commercial use a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark is evidence of bad faith use and registration pursuant 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 Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) finding that if Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); see also H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through Respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using Complainant’s famous marks and likeness. 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 relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <yahooautos.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra Franklin, Panelist Dated: April 5, 2004 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.