Americangeneralfinance.com

The timeline behind americangeneralfinance.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 American International Group, Inc. v. Forum LLC Claim Number: FA0603000657203 PARTIES Complainant is American International Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Caroline L. Stevens, Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900, Chicago, IL 60601. Respondent is Forum LLC (“Respondent”), PO Box 2331, Roseau, Roseau 00152, DM. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <americangeneralfinance.com>, registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. 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. Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 10, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 14, 2006. On March 13, 2006, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name is registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. 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 March 16, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 5, 2006 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@americangeneralfinance.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On April 12, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge 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 <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN GENERAL mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, American International Group, Inc., has used the mark AMERICAN GENERAL since at least 1926 in connection with its insurance and financial services. Complainant holds numerous valid trademark registrations for the AMERICAN GENERAL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (i.e. Reg. No. 1,173,600 issued October 13, 1981; Reg. No. 1,168,668 issued September 8, 1981). Complainant has invested large sums of money to create, maintain and promote the goodwill associated with the AMERICAN GENERAL mark. Furthermore, Complainant is one of the world’s largest international insurance and investment companies and operates in more than 130 jurisdictions worldwide. Respondent registered the <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name on June 12, 2003. The disputed domain name resolves to a generic search engine and directory website that displays numerous links to Complainant’s competitors in the financial services industry. 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 owns several valid trademark registrations with the USPTO for the AMERICAN GENERAL mark in connection with financial and insurance services. Complainant’s federal registrations are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of showing rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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.”). Complainant asserts that the <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN GENERAL mark, because the domain name completely incorporates Complainant’s mark and merely adds the generic term “finance.” The addition of a common or generic term to Complainant’s registered mark does not create a distinct domain name, especially where the added word is clearly associated with Complainant’s business. See Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry Auction, Inc., D2001-0075 (WIPO Mar. 6, 2001) (finding that the domain name <christiesauction.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark since it merely adds the word “auction” used in its generic sense); see also 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). Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Once Complainant has satisfied its burden, that burden falls on Respondent to provide evidence of its rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”). Due to Respondent’s failure to Respond, the Panel may presume that Respondent has failed to meet its burden. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). However, the Panel chooses to evaluate whether the evidence provided supports a finding of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). Complainant asserts that Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant or authorized in any way to use Complainant’s AMERICAN GENERAL mark for any purpose. In the WHOIS information for the <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name, Respondent identified itself as “ Forum LLC,” and Respondent has not come forward with any evidence tending to show that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests pursuant to the circumstances indicated in Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”); 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). The evidence shows that Respondent is using the <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name in connection with a generic directory website that provides links to numerous third-party products and services, including some of Complainant’s competitors in the financial services industry. In the absence of a response from Respondent indicating the purpose of such conduct, the Panel is entitled to presume that Respondent earns click-through fees by attracting Internet users searching for Complainant’s products and services under the AMERICAN GENERAL mark and diverting them to other commercial websites. Use that capitalizes off the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Northwest Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services). Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using Complainant’s AMERICAN GENERAL mark in the <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name to attract Internet users searching for Complainant to Respondent’s commercial website. Once Internet users reach Respondent’s website that displays financial services in competition with Complainant, Internet users may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the website and the displayed links. Furthermore, Respondent likely receives referral fees for each user misdirected via the links on Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name. These circumstances indicate that Respondent has registered and used the <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name in bad faith in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to attract users to a website sponsored by the respondent). Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <americangeneralfinance.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.) Dated: April 26, 2006 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.