Ayuda.com

The timeline behind ayuda.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 Ayuda , Inc. v. Ayuda Company Claim Number: FA0705000992048 PARTIES Complainant is Ayuda, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Bruce A. McDonald, of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, 2001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006. Respondent is Ayuda Company (“Respondent”), 355 N Lantana St #405, Dept NSDNS, Camarillo, CA 93010. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ayuda.com>, registered with Network Solutions, 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. Louis E. Condon as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 23, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 23, 2007. On May 23, 2007, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ayuda.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 25, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 14, 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@ayuda.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 20, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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 <ayuda.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s AYUDA mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ayuda.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <ayuda.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Ayuda, Inc., is the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area’s largest nonprofit provider of legal and social services for low-income immigrants in the areas of immigration, human trafficking, domestic and family law. The AYUDA mark is also registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,164,481 issued October 31, 2006). Complainant has continuously and extensively offered its services under the AYUDA mark since 1973 on annual financial reports and in correspondence with organizations such as the United Way and the District of Columbia’s Employment Services Department. Complainant’s mark has also been recognized in awards and news attention, including in The Washington Post, garnered for its services to Latino immigrants. Respondent’s <ayuda.com> domain name was registered on November 9, 1990 and resolves to a website that has no active use. 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 As the AYUDA mark is registered with the USPTO, Complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) establishing rights upon its 2006 registration. 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 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.”). Complainant also asserts common law rights in the AYUDA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through extensive and continuous use of the mark in connection with its goods and services since 1973. The evidence provided shows that Complainant used the AYUDA mark on annual financial reports as early as September 30, 1974, as well as in correspondence with the United Way and the District of Columbia’s Employment Services Department starting in the early 1980’s, predating both its USPTO registration and Respondent’s 1990 registration of the disputed domain name. Further, Complainant has been awarded in the Washington D.C. area and garnered mentions in The Washington Post for its services provided to Latino immigrants. Accordingly, Complainant has met its burden showing that its AYUDA mark has acquired a secondary meaning sufficient to establish common law rights in the mark predating its USPTO registration and Respondent’s 1990 registration of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also Keppel TatLee Bank v. Taylor, D2001-0168 (WIPO Mar. 28, 2001) (“[O]n account of long and substantial use of [KEPPEL BANK] in connection with its banking business, it has acquired rights under the common law.”) The <ayuda.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s AYUDA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as it simply appends the mark with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” See Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra, Inc., D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name <robohelp.com> is identical to the complainant’s registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference"); see also Daedong-USA, Inc. v. O’Bryan Implement Sales, FA 210302 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003) (“Respondent's domain name, <kioti.com>, is identical to Complainant's KIOTI mark because adding a top-level domain name is irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”) The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant has the burden of establishing a prima facie case that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant’s allegation that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <ayuda.com> domain name meets this requirement, thus shifting the burden to Respondent to establish that rights or legitimate interests exist. 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 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).”). When a Respondent fails to submit a Response, the presumption is that Respondent has failed to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (“By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the 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 now examine the evidence to see if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). Although the WHOIS information suggests that Respondent may be known by the <ayuda.com> domain name, there is no further supporting evidence provided. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <ayuda.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”); see also Nature’s Path Foods Inc. v. Natures Path, Inc., FA 237452 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 2, 2004) (“In its WHOIS contact information, Respondent lists its name and its administrative contact as ‘Natures Path, Inc.’ However, since Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, there has not been any affirmative evidence provided to the Panel showing that Respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the domain name.”). Per the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that has no active use. The Panel concludes that there is no bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where Respondent has failed to actively use a disputed domain name registered 17 years ago. Further, no evidence has been provided showing demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. See Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that the respondent made preparations to use the domain name or one like it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute, the domain name did not resolve to a website, and the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question). The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s registration and failure to make active use of the <ayuda.com> domain name along with a failure to provide evidence showing preparations to use the disputed domain name is representative of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that non-use of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith); see also Mondich v. Brown, D2000-0004 (WIPO Feb. 16, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to develop its website in a two-year period raises the inference of registration in bad faith). The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ayuda.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Louis E. Condon, 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.