Personal-dating-direct.com

The timeline behind personal-dating-direct.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 DatingDirect.com Limited v. Top-pile c/o Paddy Bolger Claim Number: FA0410000349191 PARTIES Complainant is DatingDirect.com Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Adam Taylor of Adlex Solicitors, 76A Belsize Lane, London NW3 5BJ, UNITED KINGDOM. Respondent is Top-pile c/o Paddy Bolger, Ferry House, 51-57 Lacy Road, Putney, London SW15 1PR, UNITED KINGDOM (“Respondent”). REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <personal-dating-direct.com>, registered with Register.com. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically October 25, 2004; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint October 25, 2004. On October 26, 2004, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <personal-dating-direct.com> is registered with Register.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com registration agreement and thereby has 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 28, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 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@personal-dating-direct.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 30, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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. The domain name that Respondent registered, <personal-dating-direct.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DATING DIRECT and DATINGDIRECT.COM marks. 2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <personal-dating-direct.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <personal-dating-direct.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, DatingDirect.com Limited, registered the DATINGDIRECT.COM mark (Trademark 2,232,175, dated May 11, 2000) and the DATING DIRECT mark (Trademark 2,318,425, dated December 24, 2000) in the United Kingdom. Complainant operates an online dating agency at the <datingdirect.com> domain name. The website was launched in March of 1999. Complainant expended considerable amounts of money promoting and marketing its brand: by the end of 2003, Complainant had spent almost ₤6 million on marketing. As a result, Complainant’s services and mark have received extensive press coverage and Complainant currently has approximately two million registered users. Respondent registered the domain name <personal-dating-direct.com> September 13, 2002. Complainant became aware of Respondent’s registration in September 2004. Respondent’s domain name resolves first to a temporary page and then after several seconds resolves to a different website. There is a link on the temporary page to “The Dating Channel,” one of Complainant’s competitors. There is another link to “Dating Direct” which does not direct users to Complainant’s website but instead directs users to yet another competitor’s site. Respondent’s domain name ultimately resolves to a search engine featuring links to other dating service 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to 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 to and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established that it has rights in the DATING DIRECT and DATINGDIRECT.COM marks through registration and through the continuous use of the mark in commerce since 1999. 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 <personal-dating-direct.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DATING DIRECT marks. The domain name entirely incorporates Complainant’s mark with the addition of the generic term “personal.” Neither word disguises the fact that the dominant feature of the domain name is the DATING DIRECT mark, and each is therefore confusingly similar to that mark. 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 Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied). Additionally, Respondent’s addition of hyphens between the individual words of Complainant’s marks does not diminish the confusing similarity between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s marks. See Nintendo of Am. Inc. v. This Domain Is For Sale, D2000-1197 (WIPO Nov. 1, 2000) (finding <game-boy.com> identical and confusingly similar Complainant’s GAME BOY mark, even though the domain name is a combination of two descriptive words divided by a hyphen); see also Chernow Communications, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark.") The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint. Therefore, the Panel accepts all reasonable allegations set forth in the Complaint as true. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Clowers, FA 199821 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 14, 2003) (finding that the failure to challenge a complainant’s allegations allows a panel to accept all of the complainant’s reasonable allegations and inferences as true); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that failure to respond to a complaint allows a panel to make reasonable inferences in favor of a complainant and accept the complainant’s allegations as true). In addition, the Panel construes Respondent’s failure to respond as an admission that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed 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 Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Domain Deluxe, FA 269166 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2004) (“The failure of Respondent to respond to the Complaint functions both as an implicit admission that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the domain names, as well as a presumption that Complainant’s reasonable allegations are true.”). Respondent is using the <personal-dating-direct.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to websites that contain various links to several online dating sites in direct competition with Complainant’s business. Respondent’s use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DATING DIRECT marks to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s products to a commercial website that provides links to websites that compete with Complainant is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion with Complainant's website and marks, its use of the names was not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use); 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); see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from Complainant's site to a competing website). Furthermore, nothing in the record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by registering a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and using it to market competing dating services. See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from Complainant's marks suggests that Respondent, Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business); 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 is capitalizing on the goodwill of the DATING DIRECT mark by using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website featuring links for competing services. Since the disputed domain name contains entire versions of Complainant’s marks and is used for something completely unrelated to its descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Therefore, Respondent’s opportunistic use of the disputed domain name represents bad faith registration and use under 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 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). 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 <personal-dating-direct.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist Dated: December 14, 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.