Ipaqspain.com

The timeline behind ipaqspain.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Compaq Trademark B.V. v. Juan Carlos Buendia Claim Number: FA0410000341228 PARTIES Complainant is Compaq Trademark B.V. (“Complainant”), represented by Heather C. Brunelli, of Thompson & Knight, LLP, 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3300, Dallas, TX 75201. Respondent is Juan Carlos Buendia (“Respondent”), Plaza Mayor 5, Pozuelo de Alarcon, Madrid 28223, Spain. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ipaqspain.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Louis E. Condon as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 13, 2004; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 14, 2004. On October 15, 2004, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <ipaqspain.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 October 25, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 15, 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@ipaqspain.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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 29, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 <ipaqspain.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s IPAQ mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ipaqspain.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <ipaqspain.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Compaq Trademark B.V., has adopted and used the IPAQ mark in association with a line of personal digital assistants with various additional capabilities such as built in phones and cameras since April of 2000. Complainant filed for trademark registration rights in the IPAQ mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 9, 1999 (Serial No. 75,844,834). However, Complainant does own trademark registration rights in Spain, where Respondent resides (Reg. No. 2,301,240, issued September 20, 2000). Additionally, Complainant owns trademark registration rights in over 90 other countries and regions around the world. Respondent registered the <ipaqspain.com> domain name on April 28, 2003. Respondent’s <ipaqspain.com> domain name resolves to a website that prominently advertises Complainant’s products and similar products manufactured by Complainant’s competitors. 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 IPAQ mark through registration with authorities in Spain and in numerous countries worldwide. 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 <ipaqspain.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and only deviates with the addition of the geographic word “spain.” The mere addition of this word to Complainant’s famous mark does not remove the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, D2000-0150 (WIPO May 2, 2000) (finding that the domain name, <walmartcanada.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous mark). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant urges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Based on Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. When Complainant makes a prima facie case against Respondent, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4 (a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name); see also 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 right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist). Furthermore, because Respondent has not submitted a Response, it is appropriate for the Panel to 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 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 <ipaqspain.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to its competing website that advertises the sale of Complainant’s products and electronic-related products belonging to Complainant’s competitors. The use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a mark to offer the same or similar services as those offered under the mark is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to 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, Respondent has provided no proof and no evidence in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the <ipaqspain.com>. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under 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 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). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s <ipaqspain.com> domain name redirects Internet users who intend to search under Complainant’s famous mark to a website sponsored by Respondent through the use of a confusingly similar domain name. Respondent’s commercial use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark evidences registration and use in bad faith 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 Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Respondent’s disputed domain name diverts Internet users to a website offering the sale of Complainant’s products and other technology-related products manufactured by Complainant’s competitors. Registering a confusingly similar domain name for the primary purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor evidences registration and use in bad faith 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 Hewlett Packard Co. v. Full Sys., FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant by offering personal e-mail accounts under the domain name <openmail.com> which is identical to Complainant’s services under the OPENMAIL mark). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ordered that the <ipaqspain.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Louis E. Condon, Panelist Dated: December 13, 2004 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.