Relixmagazine.com

The timeline behind relixmagazine.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 Relix LLC v. Asia Ventures, Inc. Claim Number: FA0508000531576 PARTIES Complainant is Relix LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Michael Sproule, of Akabas & Cohen, 488 Madison Avenue 11th Floor, New York, NY 10022. Respondent is Asia Ventures, Inc. (“Respondent”), GPO 11136, Central, HK. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <relixmagazine.com>, registered with IA Registry. 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. Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 4, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 8, 2005. On August 5, 2005, IA Registry confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <relixmagazine.com> domain name is registered with IA Registry and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. IA Registry has verified that Respondent is bound by the IA Registry 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 11, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 31, 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@relixmagazine.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 8, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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 <relixmagazine.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RELIX mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <relixmagazine.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <relixmagazine.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant Relix LLC, holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the RELIX mark (Reg. No. 2,168,963 issued June 30, 1998) in connection with its music and magazine business. Respondent Asia Adventure registered the <relixmagazine.com> domain name on March 25, 2003. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website featuring goods and services relating to “Jambands” and the musical group The Grateful Dead, that compete with Complainant’s music and magazine business. 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 has established rights in the RELIX mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO and through continuous use of the mark in commerce. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful trademark registration with the USPTO creates a presumption of rights in a mark); see also Innomed Tech., 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.”). Respondent’s <relixmagazine.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RELIX mark because the domain name features Complainant’s mark in its entirety and adds the common term “magazine” and the generic top-level domain “.com” to the mark. Furthermore, the term “magazine” is associated with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that such minor alterations to Complainant’s mark are insufficient to negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which the complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity); see also Sporty's Farm L.L.C. vs. Sportsman's Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1262 (2000), ("For consumers to buy things or gather information on the Internet, they need an easy way to find particular companies or brand names. The most common method of locating an unknown domain name is simply to type in the company name or logo with the suffix .com"); 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 Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <relixmagazine.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that respondent does not have 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”); 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 a right or legitimate interest does exist). Respondent is using the <relixmagazine.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website featuring goods and services relating to “Jambands” and the musical group The Grateful Dead, that compete with Complainant’s music and magazine business. Respondent’s use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RELIX mark to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s products to a website that offers similar goods in competition with Complainant’s business is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v. BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”); see also Or. State Bar v. A Special Day, Inc., FA 99657 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2001) (“Respondent's advertising of legal services and sale of law-related books under Complainant's name is not a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using a mark confusingly similar to the Complainant's to sell competing goods.”). Moreover, Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no proof in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <relixmagazine.com> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <relixmagazine.com> domain name 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 interests where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor was the respondent using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the <relixmagazine.com> domain name, which is identical to Complainant’s RELIX mark, to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website featuring goods and services that compete with Complainant’s music and magazine business. The Panel finds that such use constitutes disruption and 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 the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see also Puckett v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Furthermore, Respondent’s registration of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark, as well as the content of Respondent’s website, suggests that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RELIX mark. Furthermore, Respondent is deemed to have constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark due to Complainant’s registration with the USPTO. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because Respondent chose the <relixmagazine.com> domain name based on the distinctive and well-known qualities of Complainant’s mark. 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 Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”); see also Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“[T]here is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively.”); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the “domain names are so obviously connected with the Complainants that the use or registration by anyone other than Complainants suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith’”). 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 <relixmagazine.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.) Dated: September 22, 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.