Wetlife.org

The timeline behind wetlife.org

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 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Jonathan Richter Claim Number: FA0702000918678 PARTIES Complainant is Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Complainant”), represented by Heidi C. Constantine, of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 1 MetLife Plaza, 27-02 Queens Plaza North, Long Island City, NY 11101. Respondent is Jonathan Richter (“Respondent”), P O Box 99800, EmeryVille, CA 94662. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <wetlife.org>, registered with Melbourne It 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. James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 15, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 20, 2007. On February 18, 2007, Melbourne It Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wetlife.org> domain name is registered with Melbourne It Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It 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 6, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 26, 2007 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@wetlife.org by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 30, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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 <wetlife.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wetlife.org> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <wetlife.org> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Since 1968, Complainant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, has continuously and extensively used the METLIFE mark in connection with insurance, annuities, pension fund, residential and commercial mortgage, lending, real estate brokerage and management services. In North America alone, Complainant is the largest life insurer in terms of life insurance “in force.” Complainant provides financial products and services to eighty-eight (88) of the Fortune 100 companies and is also ranked 36th on that list. Complainant maintains its primary website at the <metlife.com> domain name. Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for the METLIFE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including Reg. No. 1,541,862 issued May 30, 1989. Respondent’s <wetlife.org> domain name, which it registered on December 5, 2005, resolves to a website with numerous links to third-party websites. Some of these links resolve to competing financial and insurance services companies. 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 Through registration of the METLIFE mark with the USPTO, Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (“Complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world are sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the HONEYWELL mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also ESPN, Inc. v. MySportCenter.com, FA 95326 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2000) (concluding that the complainant demonstrated its rights in the SPORTSCENTER mark through its valid trademark registrations with the USPTO and similar offices around the world). However, the <wetlife.org> domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s METLIFE mark. Respondent’s domain name substitutes the letter “w” for “m,” creating the term “wet,” which has an entirely different connotation than Complainant’s METLIFE mark. Consequently, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See iLeads.com LLC v. Electronic Marketing Sys., Inc., FA 187636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 13, 2003) (finding that the <aleads.com> domain name was not confusingly similar to the complainant’s ILEADS.COM mark because the letters “a” and “i” are not close to each other on the keyboard, do not look alike, and are not commonly substituted for each other); see also Google, Inc. v. Wolfe, FA 275419 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2004) (“The <froogles.com> domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant's GOOGLE mark. The dissimilar letters in the domain name are sufficiently different to make it distinguishable from Complainant's mark because the domain name creates an entirely new word and conveys an entirely singular meaning from the mark.”). The Panel concludes that Complainant has failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests/Registration and Use in Bad Faith Because Complainant has failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the Panel need not analyze the other two elements of the Policy. See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because Complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, Complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); see also 01059 GmbH v. VARTEX Media Mktg. GmbH/Stefan Heisig, D2004-0541 (WIPO Sept. 10, 2004) (holding that if the complainant does not satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by showing it has rights in a mark, the panel need not consider whether the respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) or whether it registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist Dated: April 7, 2007 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.