Diccovercard.com + 20 more domains

The timeline behind diccovercard.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 Discover Financial Services v. Zx Domains c/o Sezar Sak Claim Number: FA0705000989382 PARTIES Complainant is Discover Financial Services (“Complainant”), represented by Baila H. Celedonia, of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036-6799. Respondent is Zx Domains c/o Sezar Sak (“Respondent”), Etiler Cad 574, Istanbul 54270, TR. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.. 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 May 16, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 18, 2007. On May 17, 2007, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com> domain names are registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 22, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 11, 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@diccovercard.com, postmaster@dicoverard.com, postmaster@dikscovercard.com, postmaster@disc0overcard.com, postmaster@disc0vercard.com, postmaster@disc9vercard.com, postmaster@discaovercard.com, postmaster@discobvercard.com, postmaster@discocercard.com, postmaster@discove4card.com, postmaster@discovedrcard.com, postmaster@discovercardc.com, postmaster@discovercardcard.com, postmaster@discovercardx.com, postmaster@discovercared.com, postmaster@discovercdard.com, postmaster@discovertcard.com, postmaster@discovfercard.com, postmaster@discovwercard.com, postmaster@discovercsard.com and postmaster@discovercxard.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 15, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISCOVER mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Discover Financial Services, owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the DISCOVER mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,479,946 issued March 8, 1988 and Reg. No. 2,743,341 issued July 29, 2003). Complainant has used the DISCOVER mark in connection with credit card and other financial services since 1985, including home loans and investment services. Complainant has acquired over 50 million card members under the DISCOVER mark and established over four million merchant and cash access locations in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean combined. Complainant owns the <discovercard.com> and <discover.com> domain names which it uses in connection with the sale of its credit card and financial services worldwide, reporting over 13 million registered members under the DISCOVER mark. Respondent registered the <discovercxard.com> domain name on November 4, 2005; the <discobvercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovertcard.com> domain names on November 6, 2005; the <discovercared.com> domain name on November 9, 2005; the <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <discovercardc.com> and <discovercardx.com> domain names on November 13, 2005; the <disc9vercard.com> domain name on November 16, 2005; the <discaovercard.com> domain name on November 18, 2005; the <diccovercard.com>, <discocercard.com> and <discovercardcard.com> domain names on November 27, 2005; the <dicoverard.com> domain name on December 4, 2005; the <discovedrcard.com> and <discovercdard.com> domain names on December 24, 2005; the <discovfercard.com> domain name on March 24, 2007; the <dikscovercard.com> domain name on March 25, 2007 and the <discove4card.com> domain name on March 26, 2007. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s websites, some of which display a link to Complainant’s <discovercard.com> website and all of which display links to third-party websites offering services in direct competition with Complainant. 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 sufficiently established rights in the DISCOVER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO. See UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Hassan, FA 947081 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 17, 2007) (holding that where the complainant had several trademark registrations with the USPTO, “[t]he Panel had no difficulty in finding that Complainant has established rights in the marks for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Machuszek, FA 945052 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 7, 2007) (finding “that Complainant has established rights in the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark through [multiple] registrations [with the USPTO] under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”) Respondent’s <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISCOVER mark despite some minor alterations. First, Respondent has added the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark. Previous panels have held, as the Panel holds here, that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant to the consideration of whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark. See Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (“[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is…without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants….”); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”). Second, all of Respondent’s disputed domain names also have the descriptive word “card” added to Complainant’s DISCOVER mark. One of Respondent’s domain names, <discovercardcard.com>, adds the descriptive word “card” twice. Complainant has been in the credit card industry for over thirty years under the DISCOVER mark. Additionally, Respondent’s disputed domain names cause greater confusion because Complainant has registered the <discovercard.com> domain name, which it uses in connection with its credit card business. Therefore, the Panel finds that the addition of the descriptive word “card” to Complainant’s mark does not alter the mark sufficiently to negate a finding of confusing similarity under 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). Additionally, Respondent’s <diccovercard.com> and <discocercard.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISCOVER mark since they use the mark in its entirety and merely misspells the mark by interchanging one letter with another letter in the domain name (<diccovercard.com> replaces the “s” with “c” and <discocercard.com> substitutes the “v” with “c”). The Panel finds that these minor misspellings do not distinguish the domain names from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding that the domain names <tdwatergouse.com> and <dwaterhouse.com> are virtually identical to the complainant’s TD WATERHOUSE name and mark). Further, Respondent’s <dicoverard.com> is also confusingly similar as it merely misspells the mark by omitting the “s” from the DISCOVER mark and the “c” from “card.” The Panel finds that the minor omissions do not alter the mark sufficiently to avoid a finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Compaq Info. Techs. Group, L.P. v. Seocho, FA 103879 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (finding that the domain name <compq.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s COMPAQ mark because the omission of the letter “a” in the domain name does not significantly change the overall impression of the mark); see also Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding that <davemathewsband.com> is a common misspelling of the DAVE MATTHEWS BAND mark and therefore confusingly similar). Respondent’s <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com> and <discove4card.com> domain names use the Complainant’s DISCOVER mark in its entirety and merely replaces one letter with a number (<disc0vercard.com> replacing the “o” with “0,” <disc9vercard.com> switching the “o” with “9,” and <discove4card.com> exchanging the “r” with “4”). The Panel finds that the replacement of the letters by a number that capitalizes on the common mistyping of an Internet user is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source, D2000-0362 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the domain name <0xygen.com>, with zero in place of letter “O,” “appears calculated to trade on Complainant’s name by exploiting likely mistake by users when entering the url address”); 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). Finally, Respondent’s <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovercsard.com>, <discovercxard.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercardc.com> and <discovercardx.com> all add a letter or number to Complainant’s DISCOVER mark (<dikscovercard.com> adds a “k,” <disc0overcard.com> adds a “0,” <discaovercard.com> adds an “a,” <discobvercard.com> adds a “b,” <discovfercard.com> adds a “f,” <discovwercard.com> adds a “w,” <discovedrcard.com> adds a “d,” <discovertcard.com> adds a “t,” <discovercdard.com> adds a “d,” <discovercsard.com> adds an “s,” <discovercxard.com> adds an “x,” <discovercared.com> adds an “e,” <discovercardc.com> adds a “c,” and <discovercardx.com> adds an “x”). Panels have previously found, as the Panel finds here, that the addition of a letter or number to a mark does not distinguish a domain name from a mark and is therefore confusingly similar to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that <oicq.net> and <oicq.com> are confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, ICQ); see also Am. Online Inc. v. Chinese ICQ Network, D2000-0808 (WIPO Aug. 31, 2000) (finding that the addition of the numeral 4 in the domain name <4icq.com> does nothing to deflect the impact on the viewer of the mark ICQ and is therefore confusingly similar). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com> domain names. Complainant’s submission establishes a prima facie case, which shifts the burden to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”). The Panel may assume here that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also 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 will consider all available evidence before determining whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s websites, all of which display links to third-party websites offering services in competition with Complainant and some of which also display a link to Complainant’s website. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to display links to competing third-party websites is not a use 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 Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute 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 also 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24HourNames.com-Quality Domains For Sale, FA 187429 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 26, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of the <24hrsfitness.com>, <24-hourfitness.com> and <24hoursfitness.com> domain names to redirect Internet users to a website featuring advertisements and links to Complainant’s competitors could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Additionally, Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no evidence present in the record to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com> domain names. Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Zx Domains c/o Sezar Sak.” Therefore, the Panel finds that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See MRA Holding, LLC v. Costnet, FA 140454 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2003) (noting that “the disputed domain name does not even correctly spell a cognizable phrase” in finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the name “girls gon wild” or <girlsgonwild.com>); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”). Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent’s <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com> domain names are merely typosquatted versions of Complainant’s DISCOVER mark used by Respondent to capitalize on the common mistakes made by Internet users in search of Complainant’s services by attempting to type in Complainant’s <discovercard.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the multiple domain names, each of which constitutes a common misspelling of Complainant’s mark and domain name, is evidence in and of itself that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (finding that fair use does not apply where the domain names are misspellings of the complainant's mark); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent has registered and is using the <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com> domain names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website displaying links to third-party websites in competition with Complainant’s services under the DISCOVER mark and some of the disputed domain names also display a link to Complainant’s <discovercard.com> domain name. The Panel finds that such use by Respondent constitutes disruption, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See American Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant’s website, the respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites). Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website displaying links to competing third-party websites for the assumed profit of Respondent. The Panel finds that because Respondent’s disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISCOVER mark, Internet users may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with Respondent’s website, particularly since some of the disputed domain names contain links to Complainant’s <discovercard.com> domain name. Presumably, Respondent is profiting from this confusion in the form of pay-per-click fees. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s websites displaying links to competing websites and some links to Complainant’s own website constitutes bad faith registration and use under 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 AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes). Finally, the Complainant contends that Respondent’s disputed domain names are simply typosquatted versions of Complainant’s DISCOVER mark and are confusingly similar to both its mark and Complainant’s <discovercard.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com> domain names represent common typing errors Internet users may make when attempting to reach Complainant’s website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the multiple domain names each representing a common misspelling of Complainant’s mark constitutes typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 K.R. USA, INC. v. SO SO DOMAINS, FA 180624 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <philadelphiaenquirer.com> and <tallahassedemocrat.com> domain names capitalized on the typographical error of Internet users seeking the complainant's THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER and TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT marks, evincing typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). 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 <diccovercard.com>, <dicoverard.com>, <dikscovercard.com>, <disc0overcard.com>, <disc0vercard.com>, <disc9vercard.com>, <discaovercard.com>, <discobvercard.com>, <discocercard.com>, <discove4card.com>, <discovedrcard.com>, <discovercardc.com>, <discovercardcard.com>, <discovercardx.com>, <discovercared.com>, <discovercdard.com>, <discovertcard.com>, <discovfercard.com>, <discovwercard.com>, <discovercsard.com> and <discovercxard.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist Dated: June 27, 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.