Hibitsports.com

The timeline behind hibitsports.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 Sports Holdings, Inc. v. Whois Protection Claim Number: FA0706001021041 PARTIES Complainant is Sports Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David A. Benck, 3763 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 170A, Las Vegas, NV 89169. Respondent is Whois Protection (“Respondent”), PO Box 322 WB, West Bay WB, KY. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <hibitsports.com>, registered with Rebel.com. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or 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 June 26, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 6, 2007. On June 27, 2007, Rebel.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <hibitsports.com> domain name is registered with Rebel.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Rebel.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Rebel.com 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 July 10, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 30, 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@hibitsports.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 6, 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 <hibitsports.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HIBBETT SPORTS mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <hibitsports.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <hibitsports.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Sports Holdings, Inc., is a subsidiary of Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Birmingham, Alabama. Complainant has been continuously using the HIBBETT SPORTS mark in connection with the operation of full line sporting goods stores since 1994. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the HIBBETT SPORTS mark (Reg. No. 2,717,584 issued May 20, 2003). Respondent registered the <hibitsports.com> domain name on November 27, 2005. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring sponsored links to third-party commercial websites, some of which compete directly with Complainant’s business. 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 HIBBETT SPORTS mark through registration with the USPTO. The Panel finds that Complainant’s timely registration and subsequent extensive use of the mark establishes 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 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.”). The disputed domain name that Respondent registered contains a phonetically identical version of Complainant’s HIBBETT SPORTS mark that misspells the term “hibbett” as “hibit” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that such alterations to Complainant’s registered mark fail to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Cupcake City, FA 93562 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 7, 2000) (finding that a domain name which is phonetically identical to the complainant’s mark satisfies ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy); see also YAHOO! Inc. v. Murray, D2000-1013 (WIPO Nov. 17, 2000) (finding that the domain name <yawho.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s YAHOO mark); 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.”). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant established with extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained in misspelled form in the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no such rights to or legitimate interests in the <hibitsports.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does possess rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In this case, Complainant has made out a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that, absent evidence of preparation to use the domain name for a legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with the respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests). The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers Internet users links to third-party, commercial websites, some of which offer goods and services that compete directly with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate, noncommercial use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Compaq Info. Techs. Group v Jones, FA 99091 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2001) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that it used to redirect Internet users to a commercial website as part of that website’s affiliate program, where the resultant website contained banner ads as well as various links to offers for free merchandise, including merchandise from the complainant's competitor); see also 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). Complainant also asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds, absent contrary evidence, that Respondent is not commonly known by 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 Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant alleges that Respondent acted in bad faith by registering and using a domain name that contains a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers links to Complainant’s competitors’ websites. The Panel finds that such use amounts to a disruption of Complainant’s business, which supports a finding of registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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); see also Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring third-party links to websites of Complainant’s competitors. Presumably, Respondent receives click-through revenue from its diversionary use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use amounts to an attraction for commercial gain, which evinces registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by displaying the complainant’s mark on its website and offering identical services as those offered by the complainant); see also 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.’”). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <hibitsports.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: August 20, 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.