Jegex.com

The timeline behind jegex.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 Jagex Limited v. Jagex Ltd c/o Domain Administrator Claim Number: FA0705000975548 PARTIES Complainant is Jagex Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Adam Taylor, of Adlex Solicitors, 76A Belsize Lane, London NW3 5BJ, United Kingdom. Respondent is Jagex Ltd c/o Domain Administrator (“Respondent”), St. Andrews House 90 St. Andrews, Road, Cambridgeshire, II CB4 1DL, GB. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <jegex.com>, registered with Nameview, 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 J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 2, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 3, 2007. On May 23, 2007, Nameview, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <jegex.com> domain name is registered with Nameview, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nameview, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameview, 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 May 24, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 13, 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@jegex.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 19, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <jegex.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JAGEX mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <jegex.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <jegex.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Jagex Limited, is a corporation based in the United Kingdom (“UK”) that designs, develops, and operates popular online computer games. Complainant conducts its business through its <jagex.com> domain name and under its corresponding JAGEX mark. Complainant holds trademark registrations for the JAGEX mark with both the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,860,020 issued July 6, 2004) and the United Kingdom Patent Office (“UKPO”) (Reg. No. 2,302,759 issued November 8, 2002). Respondent registered the <jegex.com> domain name on April 1, 2003. Respondent’s domain name currently resolves to a website displaying links to third-party websites containing content unrelated to Complainant or Complainant’s business. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name previously indicated a third party owned the <jegex.com> domain name. After the filing of the original Complaint in this proceeding, the WHOIS information was changed to reflect the instant Respondent. 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 The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the JAGEX mark with the USPTO and the UKPO sufficiently establishes Complainant’s rights in the JAGEX mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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.”); see also The Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc v. TRB, FA 622345 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 22, 2006) (“The Panel accepts Complainant’s registration of the THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND mark with the United Kingdom Patent Office as evidence of Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s <jegex.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JAGEX mark as it is a close misspelling of Complainant’s mark. Respondent simply replaces the letter “a” in Complainant’s mark with the letter “e” in the disputed domain name. The addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, as a top-level domain is a required element of all domain names. See Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to the complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); 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 Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must initially establish that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests with respect to the <jegex.com> domain name. However, once Complainant makes a prima facie case, the burden shifts and Respondent must then prove that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the 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 has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist). In this case, Complainant has established a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Respondent is using the <jegex.com> domain name to display links to various third-party websites unrelated to Complainant’s business. Complainant alleges, and the Panel infers, that this is being done to commercially benefit Respondent through the accrual of click-through fees. The Panel thus finds that this is not 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 WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy); see also Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (“Respondent's use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant's business does not represent 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).”). Although the WHOIS information for Respondent indicates that Respondent is known as “Jagex Ltd,” there is no other information in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). To the contrary, as the WHOIS information for Respondent changed after the filing of the initial Complaint to reflect Complainant’s name and address, a practice known as “cyberflying,” the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See MB Fin. Bank, N.A. v. MBBANK, FA 644517 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 4, 2006) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where the respondent’s WHOIS information had been altered following the filing of the complaint); see also British Sky Broad. Group plc v. Merino & Sky Services S.A., D2004-0131 (WIPO July 5, 2004) (holding that there was no evidence that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names where the respondent’s information was the result of cyberflying). The Panel thus finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent has registered and is using the <jegex.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying links to unrelated third-party websites. Respondent presumably receives click-through fees for each Internet user it redirects to other websites. The Panel thus finds that Respondent is commercially benefiting from the likelihood of confusion between the source and affiliation of the disputed domain name and Complainant’s JAGEX mark. 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 Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Respondent's changing of its WHOIS information following the filing of the original Complaint, in an attempt to circumvent the Policy, an activity known as cyberflying, also indicates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Keyes v. Old Barn Studios Ltd., D2002-0687 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2002) (finding that the respondent attempted to conceal its true identity as indicative of bad faith); see also Medco Health Solutions, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Serv., Inc., D2004-0453 (WIPO Aug. 25. 2004) (holding the respondent’s efforts to disguise its true identity an example of bad faith conduct). 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 <jegex.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: June 29, 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.