Dogpill.com

The timeline behind dogpill.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 InfoSpace, Inc. v. The data in Bulkregister.com's WHOIS database is p (NA) c/o Vladimir Snezk Claim Number: FA0403000244127 PARTIES Complainant is InfoSpace, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Leslie C. Ruiter, of Stokes Lawrence, P.S., 800 Fifth Ave., Suite 4000, Seattle, WA 98104. Respondent is The data in Bulkregister.com's WHOIS database is p (NA) c/o Vladimir Snezk (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 97, Moscow, Russia 111538. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <dogpill.com>, registered with eNom, 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. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on March 9, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 12, 2004. On March 15, 2004, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <dogpill.com> is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 March 18, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 7, 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@dogpill.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 19, 2004, 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 <dogpill.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOGPILE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <dogpill.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <dogpill.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a preeminent global provider of wireless and Internet software and application services. Among other things, Complainant provides directory services offering access to information about various subjects via the Internet, provides search engines for obtaining data on the Internet, and provides for brokerage of electronic commerce transactions conducted via the Internet. Complainant has been using the trademark DOGPILE since as early as November 1996 in connection with computer programs and telecommunications services, including Internet search services, on a worldwide basis. Complainant asserts that it holds several registrations for the DOGPILE mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including Reg. Nos. 2,456,655 and 2,401,276 (registered on November 7, 2000 and June 5, 2001, respectively). Respondent registered the <dogpill.com> domain name on December 13, 2000. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website which provides web search and index services, exposes Internet users to pop-up advertisements and provides a series of links to commercial websites. 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 Due to Respondent’s failure to provide a Response, the Panel accepts 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 Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint). Complainant asserts that it holds several registrations with the USPTO for the DOGPILE mark. However, the registration documents provided in the Complaint list the holder of the mark as Dogpile, Inc. Complainant has not provided documentation showing a link to Dogpile, Inc. Complainant asserts rights in the mark and Respondent has failed to refute this assertion; therefore, the Panel accepts Complainant’s assertion as true. Moreover, other Panels have recognized that Complainant has rights in the DOGPILE mark. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Siswanto, FA 135607 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 20, 2003); see also InfoSpace, Inc. v. TBD Entm’t, FA 165120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 7, 2003). Respondent’s <dogpill.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOGPILE mark because the domain name merely varies from the mark by one letter. The domain name replaces the letter “e” in the mark with the letter “l” which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark. See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding that the domain names <tdwatergouse.com> and <dwaterhouse.com> are virtually identical to Complainant’s TD WATERHOUSE name and mark). Furthermore, the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the <dogpill.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 <dogpill.com> domain name. See 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); see also 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). Furthermore, nothing in the record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by the <dogpill.com> domain name. Moreover, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to register or use domain names that incorporate Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name 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). In addition, Respondent takes advantage of the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark because the <dogpill.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark and resolves to a website which provides web search and index services, exposes Internet users to pop-up advertisements and provides a series of links to commercial websites. The Panel presumes that Respondent receives click-through fees from Internet vendors when the domain name redirects Internet users to the vendors’ commercial websites. Thus, Respondent’s use of the 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 Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to Complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the famous MSNBC mark where Respondent attempted to profit using Complainant’s mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website). Moreover, Respondent’s <dogpill.com> domain name resolves to a website that provides web search and index services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Respondent’s competitive use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark 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 Avery Dennison Corp. v. Steele, FA 133626 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan 10, 2003) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it used Complainant’s mark, without authorization, to attract Internet users to its business, which competed with Complainant). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel presumes that Respondent receives click-through fees from Internet vendors when Internet users access the vendors’ commercial websites via the <dogpill.com> domain name. Respondent’s commercial use of the confusingly similar domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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 ESPN, Inc. v. Ballerini, FA 95410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent linked the domain name to another website <iwin.com>, presumably receiving a portion of the advertising revenue from the site by directing Internet traffic there, thus using a domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain). Furthermore, Respondent’s <dogpill.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and is used to offer services that compete with Complainant. Respondent’s competitive use of the domain name 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 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). 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 <dogpill.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist Dated: April 29, 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.