Booneandcrocketclub.com

The timeline behind booneandcrocketclub.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 Boone and Crockett Club v. Jucco Holdings Claim Number: FA0705000992124 PARTIES Complainant is Boone and Crockett Club (“Complainant”), represented by Floyd R. Nation, 1111 Louisiana, 25th Floor, Houston, TX 77002. Respondent is Jucco Holdings (“Respondent”), 655 Flower Street, No. 337, Los Angeles, CA 90017. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <booneandcrocketclub.com>, registered with Nameking.com, 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. Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) 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 25, 2007. On May 24, 2007, Nameking.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name is registered with Nameking.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nameking.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameking.com, 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 29, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 18, 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@booneandcrocketclub.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 22, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) 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 <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Boone and Crockett Club, provides services in connection with the conservation of wildlife and natural resources and sells various goods related to big game hunting, including books, knives, clothing, firearms and ammunition. Complainant has been offering these goods and services under the BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB mark since 1893 and has been using the mark continuously ever since. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB mark (Reg. No. 2,000,055 issued September 10, 1996). Respondent, Jucco Holdings, registered the <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name on December 11, 2003. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website containing links to various related and unrelated third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant’s business. Respondent has also been the respondent in several previous UDRP decisions in which the disputed domain names in those cases were transferred from Respondent to the respective complainants. See American Airlines, Inc. v. Jucco Holdings, FA 914853 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 19, 2007); see also Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Jucco Holdings, FA 765717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 15, 2006); see also True Value Co. v. Jucco Holdings, FA 684382 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 1, 2006). 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’s registration of the BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes its rights in the 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 Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive."). Respondent’s <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB mark as the disputed domain name is a common misspelling of Complainant’s mark and does not change the overall impression of the mark. The disputed domain name simply deletes one “t” from the end of the word “crockett” in Complainant’s mark. Therefore, Respondent’s <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s 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). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must initially prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has established a prima facie case, however, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name. In this case, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case under the Policy. 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). Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises the presumption that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint); see also 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.”). Nevertheless, the Panel will now examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). There is no evidence in the record, including Respondent’s WHOIS information, to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name. Moreover, Respondent is not licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB mark for any purpose. Therefore, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede the respondent’s registration; (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question). Respondent is using the <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website displaying links to related and unrelated third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant’s business. Complainant alleges that Respondent is profiting from this website through the accrual of click-through fees. This does not qualify as 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 TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The website that resolves from the disputed domain name displays links to related and unrelated third-party websites, and Respondent presumably earns click-through fees from these links. Respondent is therefore benefiting commercially from the likelihood that Internet users will confuse the source and affiliation of the <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name with Complainant’s mark. Such a practice indicates that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Shafir, FA 196119 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“As Respondent is using the domain name at issue in direct competition with Complainant, and giving the impression of being affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant, this circumstance qualifies as bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Am. 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.”). In addition, Respondent is using the <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website displaying links to the websites of Complainant’s direct competitors. Such use also constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Travant Solutions, Inc. v. Cole, FA 203177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), because it is operating on behalf of a competitor of Complainant . . .”); 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, Respondent has been the respondent in several previous UDRP decisions in which the disputed domain names in those cases were transferred from Respondent to the respective complainants. See American Airlines, Inc. v. Jucco Holdings, FA 914853 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 19, 2007); see also Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Jucco Holdings, FA 765717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 15, 2006); see also True Value Co. v. Jucco Holdings, FA 684382 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jun. 1, 2006). Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), this pattern further indicates that Respondent registered and is using the current disputed domain name, <booneandcrocketclub.com>, in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Dom 4 Sale, Inc., FA 170643 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 9, 2003) (finding bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because the domain name prevented the complainant from reflecting its mark in a domain name and the respondent had several adverse decisions against it in previous UDRP proceedings, which established a pattern of cybersquatting); see also Sport Supply Group, Inc. v. Lang, D2004-0829 (WIPO Dec. 10, 2004) (“[Respondent] registered the <usgames.com> domain name in order to prevent [Complainant] from reflecting its U.S. GAMES Mark in a corresponding domain name [pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)]. The pattern of such conduct is established, inter alia, by the public decisions of two different UDRP proceedings [against] Respondent.”). 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 <booneandcrocketclub.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist Dated: June 30, 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.