Zapp0s.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind zapp0s.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Zappos.com, Inc. v. AAA Marketing World Claim Number: FA0508000528209 PARTIES Complainant is Zappos.com, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Sean F. Heneghan, of 31 Reading Hill Avenue, Melrose, MA 02176. Respondent is AAA Marketing World (“Respondent”), New South Wales 2000, Australia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com>, and <zappls.com>, registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of 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 electronically on July 29, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 1, 2005. On August 1, 2005, Go Daddy Software, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com> and <zappls.com> domain names are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Go Daddy Software, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software, 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 August 8, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 29, 2005 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@zapp0s.com, postmaster@zapp9s.com, postmaster@zappks.com, and postmaster@zappls.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On September 6, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com> and <zappls.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZAPPOS and ZAPPOS.COM marks. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com> and <zappls.com> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com>and <zappls.com> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Zappos.Com, Inc., was founded in 1999 and has since become one of the most successful retail services on the Internet. Complainant has generated over $200 million in sales since its inception, and has shipped shoes to over 15,000 cities across the United States. Respondent registered the zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com> and <zappls.com> domain names on June 21, 2004. Respondent’s domain names resolve to a website featuring links to third-party 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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also 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.”). 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 asserts that it has established rights in the ZAPPOS and ZAPPOS.COM marks through registration with the USPTO. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”). Moreover, Respondent’s <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com> and <zappls.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZAPPOS and ZAPPOS.COM marks, as the domain names misspell and add various numbers to Complainant’s ZAPPOS and ZAPPOS.COM marks. Such changes are not enough to overcome the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Guinness UDV N. Am., Inc. v. Dallas Internet Servs., D2001-1055 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2001) (finding the <smirnof.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s SMIRNOFF mark because merely removing the letter “f” from the mark was insignificant); see also Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 149187 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent's <marrriott.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant's MARRIOTT mark); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <go2AOL.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com> and <zappls.com> domain names. When a complainant establishes a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel infers that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights or 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 the complainant that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such rights or legitimate interests do exist); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). Moreover, Respondent is not commonly known by the <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com> and <zappls.com> domain names. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by the complainant’s marks and the respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Furthermore, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com> and <zappls.com> domain names because Respondent’s misspellings and additions of various numbers to Complainant’s ZAPPOS and ZAPPOS.COM marks constitute typosquatting. See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis-à-vis complainant); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent used the typosquatted <wwwdewalt.com> domain name to divert Internet users to a search engine webpage, and failed to respond to the complaint). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to its commercial website. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), as Respondent is using the <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com> and <zappls.com> domain names to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. See 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 the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website). Furthermore, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent’s <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com> and <zappls.com> domain names illustrate “typosquatting.” Respondent’s addition of numbers and misspellings to Complainant’s famous mark illustrates Respondent’s bad faith registration. See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”); see also Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 149187 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent's <marrriott.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant's MARRIOTT mark because "Respondent's typosquatting, by its definition, renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark"). 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 <zapp0s.com>, <zapp9s.com>, <zappks.com> and <zappls.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra Franklin, Panelist Dated: September 20, 2005 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.