Cdk-pr.org

The timeline behind cdk-pr.org

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 Ciudadanos Del Karso, Inc. v. Mario Dolzer Claim Number: FA0403000250004 PARTIES Complainant is Ciudadanos Del Karso, Inc. (“Complainant”), 497 Ave. E. Pol. Box 230, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Respondent is Mario Dolzer (“Respondent”), Burghausener Str. 2a, Muenchen, Denmark 80634. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cdk-pr.org>, registered with Psi-Usa, 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 March 29, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 29, 2004. On March 30, 2004, Psi-Usa, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <cdk-pr.org> is registered with Psi-Usa, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Psi-Usa, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Psi-Usa, 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 April 13, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 3, 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@cdk-pr.org 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 May 12, 2004, 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 <cdk-pr.org> domain name is identical to Complainant’s CDK-PR mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <cdk-pr.org> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <cdk-pr.org> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Ciudadanos Del Karso, Inc., has been using the domain name <cdk-pr.org> since 1999 as the web address for its organization. The <cdk-pr.org> domain name is related to many non-profit goods and services. Many organizations including U.S. Federal agencies, the Puerto Rican government and private citizens recognize the CDK-PR mark as relating to Complainant and recognize the <cdk-pr.org> domain name as Complainant’s web address. Many nonprofit organizations include the CDK-PR mark in connection with Complainant and list the <cdk-pr.org> domain name as the website for Complainant in their publication materials. Many nonprofit organizations also include a link from their respective websites to the <cdk-pr.org> domain name for individuals wishing to find Comlainant’s website and access Complainant’s goods and serviecs. The <cdk-pr.org> domain name registration was previously owned by Complainant. Respondent obtained the domain name registration as Complainant was in the process of renewing the domain name. Respondent registered the domain name on January 29, 2004. Respondent is using the domain name to redirect Internet users to its own commercial 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 Registration of a mark with a governmental authority is unnecessary for a Complainant to establish rights in a mark if a common law mark has been established. See McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2 (4th ed. 2002) (The ICANN dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice” to support a domain name Complaint under the Policy); see also Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (finding that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy does not require “that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist”). Complainant has established rights in the CDK-PR mark through its ownership of a common law mark. Through Complainant’s long-term, continued use of the mark since 1999, Complainant and Complainant’s related goods and services have acquired secondary meaning and become distinctive of Complainant’s goods and services. A common law mark is established when a Comlainant’s goods or services become distinctive and acquire secondary meaning. Complainant has established secondary meaning in the CDK-PR mark through its continued and exclusive use for the last five years. See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also Keppel TatLee Bank v. Taylor, D2001-0168 (WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“On account of long and substantial use of the said name [<keppelbank.com>] in connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the common law.”); see also BroadcastAmerica.com, Inc. v. Quo, DTV2000-0001 (WIPO Oct. 4, 2000) (finding that Complainant has common law rights in BROADCASTAMERICA.COM, given extensive use of that mark to identify Complainant as the source of broadcast services over the Internet, and evidence that there is wide recognition with the BROADCASTAMERICA.COM mark among Internet users as to the source of broadcast services). Respondent’s <cdk-pr.org> domain name is identical to Complainant’s common law mark because it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and only deviates by the addition of the top-level domain “.org.” Merely adding the top-level domain “.org” does not remove the domain name from the realm of confusing similarity with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Mehrotra, D2000-0053 (WIPO Apr. 10, 2000) (finding that the domain name <microsoft.org> is identical to Complainant’s mark); see also Koninklijke Philips Elec. NV v. Ramazan Goktas, D2000-1638 (WIPO Feb. 8, 2001) (finding that the domain name <philips.org> is identical to Complainant’s PHILIPS mark). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by Complainant that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such rights or legitimate interests do exist); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”). Moreover, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true because Respondent has not submitted a Response. 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 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). Respondent is using the <cdk-pr.org> domain name to divert Internet traffic to its own commercial website unrelated to Complainant’s goods and services where Respondent likely receives a referral fee. Respondent’s use of a domain name identical to Complainant’s CDK-PR mark to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s goods and services to an unrelated commercial website is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See eBay Inc. v. Sunho Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the "use of complainant’s entire mark in infringing domain names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate use"); see also WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant’s mark, websites where Respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy); see also also 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). Moreover, Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no proof in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <cdk-pr.org> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the domain name for its own commercial gain. Respondent’s domain name diverts Internet users, who intend to search under Complainant’s well-known mark, to a commercial website sponsored by Respondent that offers goods and services unrelated to Complainant’s goods and services. Furthermore, Respondent likely receives referral fees for diverting Internet users to its website. Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, through the use of a domain name identical to Complainant’s mark evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered and used an infringing domain name to attract users to a website sponsored by Respondent); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users seeking Complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain); see also 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). While four circumstances are listed under Policy ¶ 4(b) that, if proven, evidence bad faith use and registration of a disputed domain name, additional factors can also evidence bad faith registration and use. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the “totality of circumstances”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“the examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive”); see also Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, D2000-0010 (WIPO Mar. 7, 2000) (“[J]ust because Respondent’s conduct does not fall within the ‘particular’ circumstances set out in ¶4(b), does not mean that the domain names at issue were not registered in and are not being used in bad faith.”). Respondent’a registration of Complainant’s mark in its entirey while Complainant was in the process of renewing its registration suggests that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s goods and servies and associated reputation. Thus, Respondent likely knew that Complainant had common law rights in the CDK-PR mark and chose the <cdk-pr.org> domain name based on its distinctive qualities and community recognition. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that "[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse"); see also Albrecht v. Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) (finding registration in bad faith based where there is no reasonable possibility, and no evidence from which to infer that the domain name was selected at random since it entirely incorporated Complainant’s name). Furthermore, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct where Respondent obtains domain name registrations while the owners of the registrations are in the process of renewing the domain names. Respondent then redirects Internet traffic intended for these established businesses to its own websites for commercial gain and likely receives referral fees. Respondent’s practice of registering domain names previously owned by others to divert intentionally Internet users resulting in Respondent receiving compensation evidences bad faith use and regisration. See InTest Corp. v. Servicepoint, FA 95291 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that where the domain name has been previously used by Complainant, subsequent registration of the domain name by anyone else indicates bad faith, absent evidence to the contrary); see also BAA plc v. Spektrum Media Inc., D2000-1179 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent took advantage of Complainant’s failure to renew a domain name); see also R-H-Interactive Jobfinance v. Mooburi Servs., FA 137041 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s registration and use of the <jobfinance.com> domain name “immediately after Complainant failed to timely renew the domain name registration” was evidence of bad faith). The Panel finds that ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established. 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 <cdk-pr.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) Panelist Dated: May 20, 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.