Ameriprisel.com

The timeline behind ameriprisel.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 Ameriprise Financial, Inc. v. Alca Bug Claim Number: FA0705000990666 PARTIES Complainant is Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by J. Damon Ashcraft, of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202. Respondent is Alca Bug (“Respondent”), Plot 1570 Ggaba Road, Kampala, kampala 7007 UG. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ameriprisel.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. Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 21, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 21, 2007. On May 21, 2007, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ameriprisel.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 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@ameriprisel.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 Bruce E. Meyerson 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 <ameriprisel.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERIPRISE mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ameriprisel.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <ameriprisel.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Ameriprise Financial, Inc., is a leader in the financial services industry with over 110 years of experience under various names. In May 2005, American Express publicly announced the spin off of American Express Financial Corporation into an independent company under the name Ameriprise Financial, Inc. Complainant serves over 2.8 million individual, business, and institutional clients with assets exceeding $466 billion. Complainant owns a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL PLANNING INVITATIONAL mark (Reg. No. 3,196,244 issued January 9, 2007, filed October 26, 2005). Additionally, Complainant has several pending trademark applications for the AMERIPRISE mark (Ser. No. 78/605,935 filed April 11, 2005) and the AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL mark (Ser. No. 78/632,463 filed May 18, 2005). Respondent registered the <ameriprisel.com> domain name on October 21, 2006. Respondent’s domain name connects Internet users to the <financeplanner.org> domain name which features a link to Complainant’s own website as well as links entitled “Financial Planning,” “Retire Early,” and “Retirement Calculator.” 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 rights in the AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL PLANNING INVITATIONAL mark through registration with the USPTO. Although Complainant’s mark was not accepted for registration by the USPTO until January 9, 2007, the Panel finds that the filing date of the trademark application is the relevant date for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As such, Complainant’s rights in the AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL PLANNING INVITATIONAL mark date back to October 26, 2005. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Hoffman, FA 874152 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 31, 2007) (finding that the complainant had sufficiently established rights in the SKUNK WORKS mark through its registration with the USPTO); see also Planetary Soc’y v. Rosillo, D2001-1228 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2002) (holding that the effective date of Complainant’s trademark rights date back to the application’s filing date). Respondent’s <ameriprisel.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL PLANNING INVITATIONAL mark. Respondent’s domain name contains the dominant feature of Complainant’s mark, the term “ameriprise,” and adds the letter “l.” The Panel finds that neither the omissions of the terms “financial,” “planning,” and “invitational” nor the addition of the letter “l” is sufficient to properly distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Admin, FA 473826 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2005) (finding the <americaneaglestores.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS mark); see also WestJet Air Ctr., Inc. v. West Jets LLC, FA 96882 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2001) (finding that the <westjets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, where the complainant holds the WEST JET AIR CENTER mark). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <ameriprisel.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case under the Policy, shifting the burden of proof from Complainant to Respondent. See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (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). Respondent is using the <ameriprisel.com> domain name for the purpose of redirecting Internet users to the <financeplanner.org> domain name. The resulting website prominently displays a link to Complainant’s own website along with links to other competing products such as “Financial Planning,” “Retire Early,” and “Retirement Calculator.” The Panel infers from Respondent’s use that it is collecting referral fees for each misdirected Internet user connected to a competing website. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Ali Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name as the respondent is merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <ameriprisel.com> domain name. The WHOIS information listed in connection with the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Alca Bug.” In the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where, among other things, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <ameriprisel.com> domain name to connect Internet users to commercial websites offering services in direct competition with Complainant’s own financial services. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use amounts to disruption of Complainant’s business in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the complainant, a competitor of the respondent); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”). Furthermore, Complainant contends that Internet users will likely be confused when searching for Complainant’s legitimate website. The Panel infers that Respondent profits from such use and considers this as further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of 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 <ameriprisel.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist Dated: June 25, 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.